Clinton has far more maxed out donors than Edwards, Obama

[draft_mario_cuomo]

This is a good breakdown of the campaign contributions thus far, which was originally discussed on Kos. 68% of HRC contributors are maxed out while only 38% of Edwards and 46% of Obama's donors are. Clinton is more reliant on fatcat maximum contributions than any candidate, including the Republican candidates. Only 21% of total contributions came in donations of less than $100

http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=136

Presidential Candidates' Fundraising Activity through First Quarter 2007
Candidate Total Receipts Net Indiv Contribs % From Large Contribs ($1,000 or more) (% from $2,300 or more) % From Small Contribs ($200 or less) Cash on Hand

Dem
Clinton 36.1 25.8 86% 68% 9% 31.0
Obama 25.8 25.7 68% 46% 22% 19.2
Edwards 14.0 14.0 77% 38% 15% 10.7
Dodd 8.8 3.7 91% 58% 2% 7.5
Richardson 6.2 6.2 80% 56% 10% 5.0
Biden 4.0 2.1 88% 48% 4% 2.8
Kucinich 0.4 0.4 19% 6% 68% 0.2
Gravel 0.1 0.0 53% 0% 28% 0.0
Dem Subtotal 95.4 78.0 78% 53% 14% 76.4

Rep
Romney 23.4 20.8 88% 34% 6% 11.9
Guiliani 18.0 16.0 87% 54% 7% 11.9
McCain 14.8 13.4 74% 38% 19% 5.2
Brownback 1.9 1.3 31% 8% 59% 0.8
Tancredo 1.3 1.2 12% 3% 78% 0.6
Paul 0.6 0.6 47% 21% 39% 0.5
Huckabee 0.5 0.5 78% 57% 10% 0.4
Hunter 0.5 0.5 69% 30% 16% 0.3
Thompson 0.4 0.3 89% 54% 2% 0.1
Gilmore 0.2 0.2 83% 32% 11% 0.1
Rep Subtotal 61.7 54.8 81% 40% 13% 31.8

Total 2007 157.1 132.7 79% 48% 14% 108.2

Small donors (from Kos)

Candidate Total Amount From Small Contribs ($200 or less)

Obama $5,773,508
McCain $2,535,313
Clinton $2,269,482
Edwards $2,039,948
Romney $1,234,416
Giuliani $1,092,486
Tancredo$ 915,846

[illinoisprogressive]

1. alot of people speculated this to be the case.

She and bill rushed to max it out and the strategy was to do shock and awe. They thought they would blow everyone out of the water with her stunning amount of money.
What upset the long well laid plans was one Barack obama. he has had a habit of doing this to clinton. While she has had things set up for years and long time strategy to minute detail, they thought the inevitability thing was the right way to the White house. They never dreamed some upstart from illinois would frustrate them at every turn.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. Can she compete with Obama in fundraising down the stretch?

It seems that as far as fundraising goes HRC has peaked. You are right, the Clintons mounted a full-court press and used their massive connections in an attempt to have a knockout blow in the first quarter and it did not work due to the Obama surprise and Edwards' competitive fundraising result.

[Tellurian]

12. Yes, your fangs of deceit are showing..when scientific evidence shows otherwise..

These data were collected April 2-5, just as reports of Obama's first-quarter fundraising success were made public. The survey results suggest that while Obama may have had a great deal of financial momentum in the past quarter, it was not matched by any increase in voter support.

Basic Results

The basic trends over five Gallup Polls conducted among Democrats nationally this year are as follows:



http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27163

Obama's poll numbers have leveled off, while Hillary's numbers continue to climb.

[BenDavid]

3. Oh my goodness. To hear you

Obama supporters HRC might as well throw in the towel and back Obama. Well excuse me but why is it that Obama seems to be either at a standstill or losing positions in the latest polls....What was it HRC was ahead in 30 of 33 state polls.....

Oh yes that is what I want you Obama supporters to do is believe you have thrown the knockout punch.....but I leave you with this....What you folks don't understand is that Hillary is the frontrunner. She is not named the frontrunner because I like Her or don't like Her. She is named the frontrunner because samples of people are polled and the poll results are published and state as such.
People act as if I am bullshitting them about Hillary's frontrunner status and this rubs my ass raw.You are certainly free to like it or not, but the current numbers say She is making sense to a lot of people.

Oh and I stand corrected. I wrote that Obama supported Lieberman in the General election but...Obama did support Lieberman in the Democratic Primary but did not lift a finger to support the anti-war Democratic candidate Ned Lamont in the general election in Connecticut....

[Colobo]

5. The author of this thread is an Edwards supporter, so...

[The Magistrate]

4. That Is Not What Those Figures Indicate, Sir

They indicate the proportion of monies raised by contributions of various sizes. Sixty-eight percent of Sen. Clinton's money came in contributions of the maximum size; that is a very different thing from sixty-eight percent of her contributors being able to donate no more money directly to her campaign.

Nor would it be an investment grade wager to state that the universe of donors is a static one at this point in the early going of the campaign, for any of the candidates. There will be a considerable expansion of the active donor base in the coming months, and this at all contribution levels.

[Alamom]

7. I agree. .....an energized Clinton campaign, armed with a donor list of 250,000

names it has not fully tapped.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR2007041401491.html?hpid=topnews<br>




"Not to mention new donors they will pick up."




edsp

[flpoljunkie]

8. Does anyone really think Clinton camp has not already contacted everyone on this 250,000 database?

They were contacted, and obviously did not respond. Perhaps they will later, but they haven't so far. How many of us were contacted by mail--an expensive way to solicit contributions--and chose not to donate to Hillary's campaign?

[Tellurian]

13. self delete

[AtomicKitten]

6. and they all have more money than me -- sigh

I wouldn't get your heart set on this one poll, particularly since it appears you have misread it.

There is a lifetime between this poll and when it starts to matter.

[DFW]

9. Exactly!!

There will be ten thousand polls between now and the Convention in 2008,
and partisans of one candidate or another will read into them what they
want to see. Even Bush is probably strutting around the oval office saying
looky here, tens of millions of Americans still support me, despite all the
crap I've caused! 29% and hardly any slippage! Whoopieee!

Cheerleading your own man/woman is fine, and I love it when some candidate
says something we call all cheer about, but this constant denigrating one
candidate or another just to make someone feel good about their own choice
reminds me of the religious fanatic who is only too eager to let us know
what he believes, but has no interest in hearing what anyone else believes.

If Obama or anyone else comes out in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and
drastic cuts in education, that's one thing. But to gloat over contributor
statistics and, in effect, point a finger at one candidate or another and
say ha ha, it's all over for him/her is juvenile BS, especially this early
in the game.

If a large number of moneyed Hillary supporters have held back in order to
make big contributions later on, now that the big first quarter push is over,
and she dwarfs contributions from the other candidates, maybe her supporters
will gloat here. If they do, they'll be just as wrong as Edwards or Obama
supporters have been on this thread. It's the first half of 2007, for Pete's sake.
No primaries until 8+ months from now.

Until then, all anyone's doing is reciting statistics. Big deal.

[wyldwolf]

10. How many misleading posts are you going to make? I'm starting to think it is intentional

[flpoljunkie]

11. 68% of Clinton's donors gave the maximum of $2,300 vs. Obama's 46%, Edwards' 38%.

That Hillary has less room to maneuver with the big donors is not an idea that originated with DRAFT_MARIO_CUOMO--and as previously mentioned, does anyone really think the Clinton camp has not already contacted each and every person on their 250,000 strong database.

[wyldwolf]

14. post #4 exposes the OP for what it is.

[Tellurian]

15. As usual, you're always looking for support for your hypotheticals

with little consideration for the X-factor.

*a flawed premise based on wishful thinking, nothing more.

[rinsd]

16. "Clinton is more reliant on fatcat maximum contributions"

Clinton has been pursuing a strategy of pushing for the max donation now.

But hey leave it to you for a gratuitous slam against a Democrat.

Obama is in the strongest position right now because he has a very large donor base to draw from.

Edwards position is superficially weak since nearly 40% of his donors have maxed and he has a smaller donor base than Clinton and much smaller than Obama.

I say superficially because this analysis assumes there will be no new donors.

[Javaman]

17. The race doesn't always go to the fastest but sometime to the

swiftest.