Obama team raises $71M in June (well behind Romney)

[Eugene]

Source: USA Today

Jul 09, 2012

Obama team raises 71M in June (well behind Romney)

By David Jackson, USA TODAY
Updated 58m ago

President Obama and the Democratic Party raised $71 million in June -- $35 million less than opponent Mitt Romney and the Republicans.

In an e-mail to supporters, the Obama campaign said June was the best fundraising month of the campaign -- but added, "we still got beat. Handily."

Romney and the Republicans outraised Obama in May as well.

Ann Marie Habershaw, the Obama campaign's chief operating officer, said in the e-mail that if Obama loses to Romney in November, "it will be because we didn't close the gap enough when we had the chance."

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/obama-team-raises-71m-in-june-well-behind-romney/1

[center rising]

1. Still, 71 million is a nice chunk of change.

[bigdarryl]

2. Means nothing Kerry out raised Bush in 04 and look what the results where READ below

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43598-2004May20.html

[Marzupialis]

3. Small donors vs. Big donors

Any breakdowns?

[Drunken Irishman]

4. Eh...

Obama still has more money in the bank than Romney. This is often not reported but money is money - it doesn't matter when you raised it. Romney has catching up to do and will out-raise Obama in these months because he just wrapped up the Republican nomination and is now bringing into the fold a great deal more donors who were probably cutting checks for other candidates between January-May. It's why, in 2004, Kerry doubled Bush's fundraising shortly after he wrapped up the Democratic nomination.

The problem with Romney's surge is that it's almost entirely in big donations. Remember, there is a cap on how much you can give a specific candidate. My guess is that Romney is getting a great deal of maximum donations, whereas Obama is pulling in smaller donations that he can tap again down the line. Romney? Once they're tapped out, they're tapped out and he will definitely need small donors to keep up during the next few months. Can he do it? Maybe. We'll see.

Finally, as much as the campaign tries to be a downer on this, I really don't think there is that much difference between $71 million and $100 million. Yes, it sound stark when you consider it's a difference of $30 million. However, at this rate, money only goes so far. If you're both making gobs of cash, which both campaigns are at this point, it's not like you'll radically out-spend the opposition. Obama has already dropped a huge chunk of change down on spending in swing states. In fact, I'd wager he's doing more ad buying than Romney right now. At some point, you can only run so many ads and do so many fliers before it becomes true overkill.

Where out-raising hurts is when you're not raising a shit-load of cash. That was the case in 2008. McCain had to scale back his operations because he just didn't have resources to campaign in a great deal of important states. Obama won't have that problem. He's pulling in enough money to effectively run a successful campaign. Romney is too, of course, but the difference now is at the point where you're looking at two candidates raising ungodly amount of money, whereas, in some instances, candidates in past elections were being outspent because they were raising weak amount of cash.

Ultimately, Kerry actually out-raised Bush in '04 and it didn't amount to anything. Why? Because at a certain point, you reach overkill and you're spending money just for the sake of spending money.

That's the beauty about being the incumbent. Whereas Romney will use a great deal of his cash selling himself to the American people, remaking his image, trying to get Americans to realize who he is, Obama doesn't need to do that. He's already known. He's already sold himself to America. They either like him or they don't and no amount of money is going to change that. Romney spending a gazillion dollars won't change that. Obama spending a billion dollars to tear down Romney's image, though? That can certainly have an impact. Bush did something similar, even though he was out-raised by Kerry for much of the campaign.

[BT021]

7. You raise an interesting point...

that McCain had to take time out to raise money,
and apparently Romney will not be in that position.

what nobody is writing, is that...
Obama eeked out a modest victory
(5 pts in the popular vote?)
outspending by 2 or 3 or 4 to 1, a teetering old man who can't say three words without taking
a drag on his oxygen tube.
On top of that, McCain ran
as the political soulmate of the most despised
president since Franklin Pierce.

[Drunken Irishman]

8. Eh (Part II)...

The popular vote isn't a good measure of overall dominance. Obama won the popular vote by over seven points, so, definitely not very close. In comparison, Bush won the popular vote by 2.4 points in '04 and lost the popular vote by .5%. Even Clinton only beat Dole by 8 points in the popular vote - one-point better than Obama.

It's all about the electoral college. There, Obama, like Clinton, dominated.

[Mutiny In Heaven]

10. I read that...

Only $24m was actually donated to Romney, the rest being RNC. Not that it matters, but I wonder what the Obama / DNC split was.

[davidpdx]

9. At some point the ad time is going to dry up as well

With so many candidates for offices and the presidential candidates buying up time, eventually there will be none left.

[and-justice-for-all]

5. Its not how much money you have..

it is how you make the money you do have work.

[bigwillq]

6. Quite sad

The two major candidates for prez raise 177 million yet a large part of the country lives in poverty. Politics is such an ugly game. It's the donors' money, but, to me, a sad statement about where this country is.