Barack raised more than 40 Million Dollars last month! (1 Viewer)

[Saintshizzle]

Man, this grass-roots effort is unbelievable. Over 1.2 million people have donated to his campaign and he pulled 218,000 just last month. The previous month was 55 Million Dollars. It appears that the American people are putting their money where their vote will be (not their mouth ).

Hillary has no more money to give herself (to make it look good). I wonder what she will do now? She is waiting for two days before the Penn Vote to release her earnings.

Obama raises more than $40 million - First Read - msnbc.com

 

[johnnyd]

he has gotten about $200 from me over the last few months.

 

[keepoursaints]

No offense intended at Barack, Hillary or any candidate, but the amounts of money used to fund these campaigns is ludicrous.

And if he doesn't get the nomination (which I'm sure he will) then all of that money was a waste.

 

[Shawn]

No offense intended at Barack, Hillary or any candidate, but the amounts of money used to fund these campaigns is ludicrous.

And if he doesn't get the nomination (which I'm sure he will) then all of that money was a waste.

That sounds nice, but what does it mean? That they should spend less?

It's one of the arguments for total public financing of campaigns---so that there isn't this arms race of raising money.

 

[keepoursaints]

I didn't really have a hidden motive for that post.. other than the fact that I think that's an insane amount of money.

Personally I'd rather see those large doners give the money to more worthwhile charities.

 

[Shawn]

I didn't really have a hidden motive for that post.. other than the fact that I think that's an insane amount of money.

Personally I'd rather see those large doners give the money to more worthwhile charities.

I guess I agree with you, it's hard not to. But I don't see an easy solution either.

I'm actually in favor of public financing of campaigns, but I also acknowledge that there are lots of problems with the idea as well.

 

[keepoursaints]

I guess I agree with you, it's hard not to. But I don't see an easy solution either.

I'm actually in favor of public financing of campaigns, but I also acknowledge that there are lots of problems with the idea as well.

Oh I'm definitely glad it's not government money used to do this for sure and I am all for people doing whatever they want to with THEIR money, but personally I find it silly.

Have they hit the billion $ mark? I would have to think combined that Hillary and Obama have to have atleast come close to eclipsing $ 1 billion.

 

[Saint77]

There should be a cap for these fools, or something to make it a little more equal. Plus, I doubt you'll find too many folks crying over less ads on tv and radio

 

[Saint by the Bay]

If you believe in a candidates vision your money isn't wasted even if they lose.

Obama has made himself a political powerhouse no matter what happens at this point. His Senate seat is all but guaranteed him for the foreseeable due to his new found popularity. His money raising will put him at the top of the political food chain. Every Democrat will want to be his friend so they can wet their beak and as such he will be able to push his "vision" through the party with ease. At this point Obama doesn't have to win the Presidency for this to be a victory for him. With the kind of fund raising ability he's shown and the way his media popularity has sky rocketed he just became the 5th or 6th most powerful Democrat in America no matter how the primary and election play out.

The people that donated to him played a large part in that so their money isn't wasted if they believe in his vision of America because, in many ways, they bought themselves massive influence in the current majority party through their candidate.

 

[V Chip]

The amount spent on the 2004 election was estimated to be around $4 Billion.

 

[Thorin]

Just think, one month of campaign money is almost enough pay Drew Brees for 6 years.

 

[geauxboy]

Just think, one month of campaign money is almost enough pay Drew Brees for 6 years.

Or help with the ever growing list of issues (schools, roads, etc) in this country. Instead, it's going to smooth talking, promise breaking talking heads that help only those that either lobby the most or throw the most "donations" their way.

 

[Saintshizzle]

If you believe in a candidates vision your money isn't wasted even if they lose.

Obama has made himself a political powerhouse no matter what happens at this point. His Senate seat is all but guaranteed him for the foreseeable due to his new found popularity. His money raising will put him at the top of the political food chain. Every Democrat will want to be his friend so they can wet their beak and as such he will be able to push his "vision" through the party with ease. At this point Obama doesn't have to win the Presidency for this to be a victory for him. With the kind of fund raising ability he's shown and the way his media popularity has sky rocketed he just became the 5th or 6th most powerful Democrat in America no matter how the primary and election play out.

The people that donated to him played a large part in that so their money isn't wasted if they believe in his vision of America because, in many ways, they bought themselves massive influence in the current majority party through their candidate.

True words indeed. The remarkable aspect of it is that the average is less than 100 dollars per donor. I agree with Shawn on totally having these fools (as 77 called them) get there money publicly. Bottom Line, you have to entice a lot of people (over 218,000) to earn that much money, in one month, at less than 100 dollars per donor.

 

[Shawn]

Or help with the ever growing list of issues (schools, roads, etc) in this country. Instead, it's going to smooth talking, promise breaking talking heads that help only those that either lobby the most or throw the most "donations" their way.

But isn't that a symptom of allowing private financing of campaigns?

It sounds good to say you don't want public money spent on campaigns, but there's absolutely no way to cap, limit or monitor financing when it comes from private sources.

If there was public funding, you might give non-party candidates a more legitimate shot, and you could put an end to campaigning that is based purely on saturating the media with ads.

Public funding would take a lot of lobbyists out of the equation.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

True words indeed. The remarkable aspect of it is that the average is less than 100 dollars per donor. I agree with Shawn on totally having these fools (as 77 called them) get there money publicly. Bottom Line, you have to entice a lot of people (over 218,000) to earn that much money, in one month, at less than 100 dollars per donor.

I'm on his newsletter and I get 2 or 3 requests per week for donations. I have to give them credit, the word the requests very well. Monday I got a request to hurry up and donate before the end of March because it "shows momentum" when the report March dollars.

He has a very aggressive but effective fund raising team.