The best POTUS that money can buy

Obama campaign reports raising $70 million in third quarter

President Obama’s reelection campaign and the Democratic National Committee reported Thursday raising $70 million in the third quarter.

The campaign and the DNC reported that, combined, 606,027 people donated to the campaign and gave over 766,000 donations all but two percent of which were of $250 or less. The campaign reported the average donation to be $56.


Broken down, the campaign reported raising $42.8 million while the DNC raised $27.3 million.

They combine the two numbers to make Obama’s fundraising look bigger, giving the impression he’s still popular. Remember how they were constantly bragging about how much money Obama was raking in in 2008?

He outspent Hillary 4-1 in Pennsylvania and she still kicked his ass.

BTW – I wonder what those averages would look like if they eliminated all the people who made $5 donations for a chance to have dinner with Barack?

Any bean counters out there want to go to Open Secrets and crunch the numbers? I would do it but I’m no good at numberology.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to The best POTUS that money can buy

  1. Three Wickets says:

    Meanwhile, here’s Obama and Immelt talking about the Jobs Council recommendations which far as I can tell is not different from the Jobs bill which did not pass, but guess they are going to try again.

  2. Isn’t it a bit difficult to argue that Obama is both paid by Wall Street (which he is) and pays for OWS (which I doubt)?

    • Three Wickets says:

      He isn’t really paid by Wall Street, especially in this cycle. Doubt much of that $70 million came from Wall Street. Nor does he (or OFA) pay for OWS imo. Doesn’t mean OFA is not stirring OWS’s pot. The biggest tell is absence of anti Obama signs, speeches, proclamations, etc. And also establishment Obama Dems in Congress chiming in with their support for OWS. DNC Chair Rep. Wasserman Schultz Gives Props to OWS Protesters

      • Three Wickets says:

        If it’s not about electoral politics, then why aren’t more OWSers reaching out to Tea Partiers, and visa versa. Protesting Wall Street excess should be a common purpose, why shoud it be driven by DNC or GOP affiliations. Think there are definitely people out there whose main message is frustration with the economy and anger at the growing wealth disparity in the country, maybe even the majority. But two things are not happening: protests against Obama who is the nominal head of the bailed-out establishment, and no recognition of people in the 99% beyond themselves which I think says a lot.

      • yttik says:

        “He isn’t really paid by Wall Street, especially in this cycle. Doubt much of that $70 million came from Wall Street”

        Well, “wall street” is just a word , it really means big business and corporations. Of course Obama is being funded by them. Right off the bat it shows 11% of his donations coming from finance. Finance is an industry. There are many other industries that are donating to Obama, too. Industries that trade on wall street.These are not all individual donations coming from poor people. I hope nobody is believing that silliness.

        • Three Wickets says:

          Things are changing. Campaign contributions still matter of course. But even if Obama spends $2 billion on direct paid ads, that’s maybe 10-20x smaller than his news/entertainment value to the media and also ultimately to himself. During election season, marketers will spend tens of billions placing their brand ads around election news stories, and Obama is a big driver of that, so are the GOP debates and all the other parade elements to come. It helps keep the newsmedia solvent these days. The better a candidate is at being an American idol, the more money the media makes, the more positive exposure the candidate gets, and that exposure is more consequential and represents far bigger $$ than political ads. If Wall Street wants to impact an election, they will do it by influencing media coverage.

    • WMCB says:

      Not at all. You can’t assume that sincere people cannot be useful tools for an agenda that they never intended. Why would you assume that? Look around the world, at uprisings and revolutions and protests galore – it happens all the time.

    • WMCB says:

      Bringing this up from downstairs. Whoever set this up, from what I can see, is actively discouraging them from forming any kind of semi-unified message, or having actual leaders from among themselves. Why? The teaparties were successful because they did organize themselves from within, choose local leaders even if informally, and try to set out a plan for achieving leverage over our govt using the system we have. Yes, there was a lot of emotion, but the emotion wasn’t the point of it all.

      Keeping it all vague and anonymous does not benefit the protestors in achieving any goals, and they are being outright discouraged from having any measurable ones. Under the guise of “leaderless consensus” they are being held to no targets other than symbolic ones. Why? It doesn’t benefit them, or change anything.

      It does benefit those who might have an interest in keeping a boiling pot going without any real threat to the status quo.

      • DandyTiger says:

        Who benefits from keeping progressives spinning their wheels and getting some of their anger out in non constructive ways? One obvious immediate benefit is that this distracts from any primary effort. Imagine that same energy directed towards pushing the party to primary Obama. That could actually work with enough people marching and shouting.

        • WMCB says:

          I love the whole consensus thing. “We can’t do anything unless everyone agrees – isn’t that novel and human-oriented and community-building? Look how inclusive we are!”

          Uh. Huh. You are also the perfect recipe for lots and lots of RRRRRAGE!! and !!spectacles!!! and !!!visibility!!! and !!!voices heard!!! and doing nothing concrete to change jack-all, because the entire motley group is never going to 100% agree, so any action is always vetoed by “failure to reach consensus”.

          Who originally came up with the NY Assembly, it’s “consensus” structure, and spread that out via social media? Because damn but if it’s not the perfect vehicle to make people feel really good about their wonderful utopian process, while ensuring that nothing ever gets done. Almost tailor made for that.

        • DandyTiger says:

          But it’s “open source”. Here’s the thing about open source efforts and projects, and I’ve been involved with many of them, they all have leaders, goals, and those people keep things directed and push away things that don’t meet their criteria. The main project is very directed and moves forward and achieves those goals. If other groups have other ideas, they fork off another version of the project and go their own way. It’s cool and fun. Sometimes a fork becomes more popular than the original project. And that’s cool. But it’s never by big group consensus. The entire point is to be forkable/branchable as a means of dissent instead of consensus.

        • DandyTiger says:

          That is, open source follows more of an evolutionary path than a consensus path. Lots of alternative can be tried by lots of separate groups/leaders. The brach that gains traction and wins is the one that continues, and the less good branches die out.

          Of course you can think of evolution as a natural long term “consensus”, but that is not what is supposedly happening with OWS. If it were, you’d see lots of little assemblies competing, coming up with their own policy messages, and the one that gained the most followers would win. Instead with OWS you have assemblies that work for days trying to get consensus. Which they probably will never achieve. And of course as mentioned already, what they’re trying to get consensus about is specifically not about policy changes, so is utterly irrelevant.

    • angienc says:

      Only if you actually believe that Wall Street gives a shit about OWS and/or that OWS is actually going to do anything that effects Wall Street in a practical way (which it isn’t).

      • DandyTiger says:

        I’ll say if the movement could really include a large percentage of “the 99%” and be a massive march against “the 1%” and have a coherent message that resinated and pointed to an obvious and clear policy change, they could effect change. But notice that there isn’t a policy message and they’re specifically excluding a large part of “the 99%”. Funny that. Why it’s as if it has another purpose in mind.

        • DandyTiger says:

          Another observation relating to the no coherent policy change message, notice how the consensus committees spend all of their time generating charter like statements, or rights we stand for like statements. Notice how completely and utterly irrelevant that al is. Isn’t the constitution and the bill of rights a plenty good place to start? Couldn’t they just skip that bit and get on to the policy change message? Notice how they’re not doing that. Funny.

        • angienc says:

          Well, yeah, if OWS was *actually* inclusive of all 99% and if it *actually* had a unified message, things would be different. As the saying goes: “if ands & buts were candy & nuts, we’d all have a happy Christmas.”

          So while we don’t know for sure what OWS actually is/wants, we know for a fact that it the opposite of THAT.

  3. Mimi says:

    All money donated to any Democratic fund is Obama’s. When they moved the party machinery to Chicago they co-opted everything including the money. In 2010 there was a lot of bellyaching that Obama did not share well and left many, many candidates with a chance to win strapped for cash. I expect to see a lot of strange accounting. Expect Kinde Durkee to become a consultant and adviser.

  4. 1539days says:

    First, I don’t know how they calculate the average campaign donation is $56. $70 million divided by 766,000 is $91. Then again, that’s the combined value. Now, if we used the $56 metric and extrapolated that to the 98% of donations under $250, that would give us $42 million. That leaves $28 million over 15,000 donors, or $1800 per donor.

    Basically, the numbers in this story are useless. You need the mean, the median and the mode to get an idea of the actual distribution of money.

    Opensecrets doesn’t seem to have the updated information yet. They do, however show that 11% of Obama’s bundlers are in finance.

  5. WMCB says:

    Ouch. New Quinnipac poll for NJ.

    Gov. Christie approval 58%. Obama approval 44%.

  6. angienc says:

    It is true Obama outspent Hillary at every turn and she actually WON the nomination BUT Obama isn’t running against Hillary. I’m not 100% confident that if he outspends any of the GOP candidates the same way that they will win.

    Of course, I’m factoring in all the cheating that is sure to occur with my fears as that is the *only* way he’s ever won any election his entire so-called “career.”

  7. Wonder if any of the sheeple that sent in their last minute $3 raffle tickets won any of those dinner tickets?
    Nah- they probably divided all the big donations by 3 and gave those high rollers that many “chances” each.

  8. DeniseVB says:

    OT: Weiner back in the news. One of his tweeties wrote a book.

Comments are closed.