1M+ Donations to Obama in March
by Patrick Ruffini :: March 24th, 2008 11:50 am(Correction? See update.)
If you’re a Republican (like me), it’s time to grab the Rolaids again.
According to publicly available donor data on BarackObama.com, the Obama campaign has already received more than one million individual donations in March. Obama had received 727,972 donations in his record-breaking $55 million February. And we still have a week to go in the month.
[Update: The Obama campaign has pulled down the original graphic in response to this post, but not the version at Ben Smith’s, so I’ve reposted a screengrab of that here.]
This graphic stood at 963,525 just as February was turning into March (note: a script seems to run that increments this old graphic in 2,000 chunks, but it was accurate in February).
What this means in terms of a bottom line number for March is anyone’s guess, though it appears highly unlikely (to me, at least) that the campaign won’t exceed its February haul. The average contribution plummeted from around $140 in January to $75 in February. If the lower February number holds, that could mean $75 million raised already this month. But it seems likely that the average contribution would have drifted further down still as repeat donors become a bigger slice of the pie. Here are arguments on both sides of the ledger though:
Why the Number Could Be High: What was happening at the end of the last month with Obama’s online donors? It was the One Million campaign, with the pitch of making a matched donation to reel in new donors with the goal of reaching one million donors to the campaign. The logic behind this seems to suggest a very high number of small donations, as people chip in $5 or $10 to help the campaign get towards its million donor goal. Crucially, the goal was set in numbers, not dollars, making gift size less important. The Obama campaign has done relatively little goal-based fundraising in March, so online contribution averages may have drifted up to more normal levels with less of a frenzy to meet a goal.
Why the Number Could Be Lower: We already saw at the end of February how the Obama campaign was getting tapped out of new donors. Towards the end of the month, they seemed to be reeling in 5 donations for every 1 new donor recruited. That ratio is likely to have been even higher in March (with even more donations this month than last it almost certainly has, in fact). And the first-time donors are the ones likely make larger contributions in excess of $100. For repeat donors, it’s more likely to be $25 here, $50 there. More donor longevity means smaller donation averages.
What It Means: That Obama was able to attract so much support in March is nothing short of staggering, given the bad month he has had, from perceived losses in Ohio/Texas to the Jeremiah Wright controversy. Or Obama donors could be rallying to his side in troubled times (look how Hillary was able to reel in donations after announcing a self-loan).
The accelerating pace of donations demonstrates conclusively the snowball effect that kicks in the longer a successful low-dollar fundraising base has been in place. In a sense, it seems to be momentum-proof. It also suggests a campaign that has become tethered to its supporter base as if by umbilical cord. Given the omnidirectional reinforcement supporters get from the email channel, the earned media channel, and the social channel, online donors are constantly connected to the campaign, even in slower periods. There is no limit to number of contacts a campaign can effectively have (unlike in direct mail), as the campaign is “always on” regardless of how many emails or Will.i.am videos one receives.
I also wonder if the huge March number is also a factor of recurring monthly contributions really paying off in a big way.
Whatever the total, Obama looks headed to a monster March in fundraising. $55M would be a low estimate.
UPDATE: Ben Smith noticed this yesterday, and the Obama campaign is claiming a technical “glitch” in the counter but won’t say how much it’s off by. The graphic seemed to be rising at improbably high rates after it was yanked from the site in February, however the number of donations was accurate.
Comments (22) 
Trackbacks (0) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
@SuperDestroyer,
You are unusually restrained today.
I see you don’t mention the word “incompetence” until the second paragraph. You also don’t advance the argument that all Ruffini thinks is that you need a good website to overcome the incompetence of Republican leadership.
Was the copy/paste function not working somehow?
They also have a “Raffle” type thing going, where every donation until March 31 gets you a chance for dinner with His Holiness. From the email:
“Make a donation in any amount, even $5, between now and 11:59 pm EDT on Monday, March 31st, and you could join Barack and three other supporters for an intimate dinner for five.”
$55M? It’ll take $55 trillion to reverse the Wright damage. It’s money down a sink hole.
McCain has barely tried to build his list or use some of the techniques Obama has employed. Instead, he pretends it’s 2004 and goes to fundraiser after fundraiser. (Yes, I know he was overseas last week. But before that it was days and days of fundraisers.)
I did not mention internet initiatives because the post was not about them. However, I find it odd that you mention the failure of the Republicans to fund raise without mentioning anti-fund raising initiatives such as the George Bush Peso.
Is Senator Obama having great fund raising success because he has a great internet strategy or because he has a great brand with which people want to be involved?
Do you really think the conservatives voters would be keeping their wallets close his Senator McCain has the least bit of charisma, any good ideas, or had demonstrated the least bit of leadership?
The other question that should always be asked when a campaign is having problems is whether the candidate is not sharp enough to surround himself with a great staff, too stupid to take his staff’s advice, or too incompetent to realize how bad his staff really is? My guess is that for Senator McCain, it is some of all three.
One of the early raps against the Obama fundraising machine from last year was that they count everything as a donation. If you buy a hat or a tee-shirt, you’re a “donor” and the amount of the purchase is listed as a “donation.” Now, this certainly doesn’t account for his record-breaking totals, but it does clarify the number of “new donors” on his list.
It is certainly possible that someone who buys a hat or a tote emblazoned with “Obama” might make a subsequent donation if peppered with enough follow-up emails, but as a “donor base,” they aren’t quite so scary.
I also saw at least one report claiming Obama had spent $24 million in Texas and Ohio in a last-ditch effort to sink Hillary and avoid a protracted battle which, if anywhere near the true figure, raises questions over how prudently his money is being spent. Remember Howard Dean? He set records, too, and then shipped in wheels of Vermont cheese for his Iowa staff - on a chartered jet.
Jim,
Counting merchandise buyers as donors *is* smart.
1) You get to report more money raised to the FEC and more donors, even if much of it is a passthrough to the merchandise vendor.
2) Anyone buying a t-shirt with your logo is committed supporter. You should own the relationship with that person, and not a third party vendor.
When Obama is raising as much in a month as Dean did in a campaign, the Howard Dean dog won’t hunt.
The Democrats’ massive fundraising advantage is already hurting McCain by forcing him to do nonstop fundraising events instead of talking directly to voters, as Sean pointed out. It may not cost him the election because free media is much more important in Presidential elections than paid media, but the mechanical benefits of Obama’s pre-built online base are pretty clear.
Obama supporters are rallying behind him to show support. He makes the most money when he’s under attack. I would be interested in seeing the amount of money he made on the day of “The Speech” — it’s probably astronomical.
The UK set an all time record for use of ordinance the first day of the Battle of the Somme. Methinks the massive firepower of the Obama campaign is being expended to equal effect
Patrick,
One important note on your aside:
“…look how Hillary was able to reel in donations after announcing a self-loan…”
Hillary wasn’t actually able to do that. She lied about her fund-raising, counting donations for the general in her primary count, and also counted money donated to her senatorial fund.
See the LA Times article.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-money21mar21,1,6702245.story
I have news for y’all. I’m 35 and I donated to the Obama campaign in February for the first time ever — to any cause. Lifelong Democrat with slightly libertarian/independent leanings, voted in all presidential and most state elections, but never gave. Until now. And it wasn’t because of offers, raffles, online contacts or any of this or that. I was moved to go online and donate money because it’s about time the *real* straight-talking candidate — the first one one on a national level that I have ever known, frankly — gets a boost.
And that’s why Obama’s hitting the million mark. And that’s why he’ll continue to do so. There’s no secret here, no tactical playbook, no microtrends. It’s people like me.
And it’s what will take him all the way to the White House, come a 1000 racist objections and moronic Wright replays and whatever else. All of that stuff is nothing. Got bigger fish to fry. Never seen anything like this man in 35 years. Full stop.
Obama’s online success is mostly due to having an engaging personality and message. Yet his campaign has effectively and creatively used the internet (especially e-mail) to take advantage of that passion.
For McCain to narrow the fundraising gap he needs to talk directly with his potential supporters. There are definitely some like superdestroyer who will never, ever respond positively to a McCain message, but McCain plays well with a substantial amount of independents. Not just reporters appreciate “straight talk.” Patrick’s idea a few weeks ago of a videoblog would be a relatively simple and effective way to begin the conversation. Even if McCain wants to continue the 2004 Bush-style fundraisers he can still fit in 2-minute daily videos. There’s no downside.
given that the state level Republican parties cannot riase funds either, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/24/politics/politico/main3961610.shtml
It is more than John McCain being old-fashion that is limiting his fund raising.
Maybe it is the lack of a Republican vision for the future. Maybe it is the lack of credibility that the Republicans have on virtually every issue. Maybe it is the failure of the last decade for the Republican to lead when they are ever in power?
I doubt that video blogs or e-mail lists can make up for a severely damaged brand that lacks leaders, lacks credibility, and lacks vision.
well, SD, are you doing anything about this? Run for office? Manage a campaign? Promote some local issue agenda?
In the words of Colonel Jessup, grab a rifle and stand a post, dammit
Ironman, I am just a foot soldier. It is not for the footsoldiers to train their leaders to be good leaders. However, no matter how much the everyday Republicans complain, with hold donations, or stay home, the leadership of the Republican party does not seem to change.
I wonder if all of the leaders in the Republican Party are surround with Karl Rove wannabes like Patrick who believe that social networking and e-mails can make for a failure to lead. As long as the people in charge of the republican Party are surrounded with sycophants, there is nothing that the rest can do.
Is it any wonder Obama is doing so well when you have McCain singing the Beach Boys’ song, ‘Bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran’ and then LAUGHING!!! The Republicans are so clueless they think starting a third war is funny. And why is it the Republicans always talk about their party, and never think or talk about the country as a whole? Well guess what, they are in for a rude awakening come Nov.
And BigOldDog, maybe you should enlist and go fight the war(s) for McCain, Bush Inc.
well, SD, we’ve been winning local elections lately in my deep blue state maybe because we’ve stopped whining about our misfortune and gone to work
http://www.everydayrepublican.com/2008/03/24/lets-stop-the-navel-gazing/
Superdestroyer refuses to listen. Fundraising success in the internet age requires the proper tools so when the candidate or party has a message that connects with people they can easily turn that excitement into donations. It’s not just message and it’s not just cool shiny things like social networks and e-mail. It’s both. When done well it, like Obama’s success, it can make you say, “wow.”
It is just not the message. It is how the message is implemented. From 2001 to 2006, the Republicans had the perfect the situation to implement their message of smaller government and fiscal conservatism. Yet, for six years they refuse to implement their vision. They increase the regulatory burden, they increased spending, they filled the budget with pork, and created new entitlement prorams.
During that entire time, political operators like Karl Rove kept saying that the Republicans could niche market with focused messages so that voters would keep voting for republicans who were doing the opposite of what their message was.
In the long run, the Republicans threw away the credibility of their message because they believe that slick campaign strategies could make up their failures. People like Patrick are still preaching that campaign srategies can make up for the failure to lead. I argue that no campaign gimmick for the failure of the Republicans to lead. It will take decades, if every, for the Republicans to regain their credibility and no matter of social networking, websites, e-mail campaigns, can make up the difference.
Given the demographics of Connecticut, the Republicans should be dominating. Yet, they are forced to play defense so that the Democrats do not have a veto proof majority.
“Given the demographics of Connecticut, the Republicans should be dominating”
Learn something before you go out and pontificate, please
Ironman,
Nationwide, the republicans get over 53% of the vote. In a state like Connecticut where more than 80% of the voters are white, the Republicans should be the majority instead of a minority party that is fighting to remain relevant in the political process. Maybe you should review how demographics affects voting.
In the long run, the Repulbicans face the huge problem in that the Hispanic and Black populations are growing faster than the white populations, given that Hispanics and Blacks vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats, the long term prospects of the Republicans are poor unless the Repubicans start getting more than 60% of the white vote. I believe it will take more than target marketing and social networking to hit those numbers.
This is what happens when the leaders of a party decide to destroy the brand. Why would anyone who wants secure borders donate to a party that nominates an open borders fanatic? Why would anyone who wants fiscal sanity donate to a party that has added trillions to the national debt and added billions in pork to the budget? Why would anyone who wants smaller government donate to a party that created new cabinet Departments? What would any civil libertarian donate to a party that wants to feds to monitor medical decisions?
The incompetence of Bush, Hastert, Frist, Delay, Cheney, and others has destroyed the Republican Brand. The Democratic Party is taking advantage of the incompetence, stupdity, and short sightedness of the current Republican leadership.
It is probably beyond the ability of any current Republican to bring back any credibility to the Republican Party on almost any issue that appeal to conservatives. And until the Republicans party starts running sharp, competent leaders who have credibility on conservative issues, the fund raising will stay low.