Final Official Obama Fundraising Number -- a Record-Setting $745 Million

Choosing the right President is a risky expensive business. 2 collections are going on at the same time, one collecting votes and the other collecting money? In either case both donor types want to see what they eventually get for their trouble. Sadly in most cases both are very disappointed.

I agree, next story should be "Obama won because of corrupt media." And, the corrupt media should be forced into court for their corruption of democracy. They offered TWO frontrunners who both are warmongers and voted for the bailouts. Bankruptcy on money and morals and democracy...we prefer life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, not bankruptcy and villains unable to be usurped! Tyranny tendered was media proferred and insisted upon, corruption of no challenges allowed, the media said TWO (incumbents) and the SIX on the ballot was not presented. 100 million non-partisan was presented as undecided against the 62 million in the combined two parties. NO, the two parties were in office and due the challenge for a majority rule of informed happy voters who can vote real change DUE. Court for the media corruption of Democracy can happen. Let them go down to the ground.

It frustrates me that so many of you are unconcerned about the ridiculous amounts of money raised and spent in this campaign by all the candidates (primary and general season), particularly by Obama. It will only continue to get worse in the future-- because the person who raised by far the most money won. I'm not arguing the money was the only factor, but it makes little sense to pretend it made no difference.

Thus, I was fascinated by the post by James where he makes just such a claim. James wrote: "I don't think the difference in money made much of a difference. I think the campaigns were not equally covered in the so-called press. McCain received a much better treatment all concerned." That is so hilarious I almost fell out of my chair. McCain got better press coverage? Are you serious?

A lesson to all of those who was rolling on the floor laughing at Obama's "community organizing".

BRAVO OBAMA

David Glover writes, "Nothing new here; now move along."
=========================
Let's see if you can take your own advice. (lol)

As Shy Anne said before me --

"I sent some money to the Obama campaign every time someone in the opposition pulled some boneheaded stunt that made me so angry, I could barely see straight."

DITTO! I think this is how so much money was raised. Throughout the primary and general election I sent $25 here and $50 there. I've never contributed to a campaign before, but I was FED UP! The combination of the ease of giving with the internet and PDAs, hotly contested races, and a large portion of the population's disgust with the current state of the country added up to big gains for the Obama campaign. And they were smart with the emails that they sent asking for donations as well.

You don't have to look any further than the large amount of donations sent unsolicted to Michelle Bachman's opponent after her appearance on Chris Matthew's show to figure out what was going on this year. People were ticked and sending money was way to feel like you could do something about it. Election day only comes once, but contributions to help elect the person you want can be sent at anytime. Immediate satisfaction!

Also, I have two words for the people who are fussing about Obama "buying" the election: Ross Perot. You can. not. win. the American presidency with money alone. Ask Mitt Romney. People will not vote for the guy with the deepest pockets, unless they also support his policies.

The Dems raised so much money this year because (a) enough people were sick and tired of the Republicans ruining this country, (b) nobody wanted to take even the smallest chance that it would be 2004 all over again, and (c) I think there were a lot of people like me -- I sent some money to the Obama campaign every time someone in the opposition pulled some boneheaded stunt that made me so angry, I could barely see straight. Jesse Jackson won SC, too? Let's send some money to the Obama campaign. Obama is a terrorist? Well, I'll just go send him another twenty bucks, how's that? Every. time. It was never much at any given time, but it added up, because it happened a lot. Obama wouldn't have raised nearly this much money, if his opponents hadn't been so obnoxious.

"You next story should be " Obama won because of the corrupt media""

poor poor Republicans: always defeated by insidious scheming outsiders. it just can't be possible that they put up the lesser candidate. nope, just not possible. there must have been some other force at work!

idiots.

The money the Obama campaign "raised" was primarily from corporate bundling, not, as most believe, from "grass-roots donors." Look people, American corporations held their collective wet finger in the air and decided that the wind was blowing to the "left." Obama beguiled alot of little people with his lofty rhetoric and the corporate suits followed along. End of story. Nothing new here; now move along.

If you're tired of the disruption on your life caused by non-stop political commercials, infomercials, and endless robocalls then it is well past time for real campaign reform to be passed.

Judging from the facts and figures, McCain's total of 630 million must have included 226 million from the RNC - since his combined totals of public funding and private donations are 404 million. So if Obama raised 745 million for a total of 1 billion, then that would have to include 255 million from the DNC. Which would make the DNC coffers substantially larger than the RNC. I don't think so. The presented numbers just don't add up.

"Wow and all this while our country is in a recession, giving away money and while Mr. Obama was lying repeatedly in a historic campaign." (Posted by: young_voter | Dec 4, 2008 9:34:51 PM)

Cheeze & Crackers!! What a load of crap. Exactly which voluntary element of "contribution" are you confused about?

Do you know how McCain's primary campaign was funded? Voluntary contributions. How about his general election campaign? That would be voluntary contributions via Federal campaign financing courtesy of taxpayers knowingly and willingly contributing to the public financing pool by specifying consent to a donation on their tax returns.

The above-quoted argument lacks intellectual honesty to the extent that even Stevie Wonder could see it.

Yes, as of this date we, as a country, are technically in a recession. I'm a working, lower-income, divorced mother of 3 who gave a whopping $15 to the Obama Campaign in $5 increments and in coordination with days when I felt I would, personally, rather donate than eat for that day--very much voluntary, very much my right AND one that many small-dollar Obama supporters exercised.

Meanwhile, the capitalist, free-market, trickle-down figureheads are now regulars at our capitol begging for handouts, absent any modesty or contrition. When do you suppose is the last time those mugs skipped a meal?

The minimal financial contributions of myself, and many other similiarly- situated supporters, cannot be rationally equated with any modicum of shame relative to the collective fiscal health of this country.

Respective to any struggle worth fighting for, half the battle is showing up. Obama supporters showed up with $$, time, talent and their votes, much of which was backed by personal sacrifice.

What, exactly, did the so-called party of personal responsibility and personal freedoms show up with? By my calculations, not much of anything, excepting an abundance of perpetual whining.

I would argue that Obama underperformed financially.

Every hour in the US there is approximately $3.5 BILLION in transactions that take place. If you have 4 million people culmulatively give $250.00 over an 18 month period, that is $13.88 a month.

Given that reality, and the fact there are millions of people who can donate in small amounts, he should have raised $3 to $4 billion.

It is a shame that the Democratic win and the changes in Congress haven't been attributed to American voters' disgust with and rejection of the Republican support for the policies of Bush, Cheney and the neocons; a war based on lies in Iraq; torture; mid-night renditions; corruption of the Department of Justice; warrantless wiretaps of American citizens; suspension of habeas corpus; renunciation of international treaty obligations, etc. ... And the associated deaths of 4000+ American soldiers, the deaths of an un-known number of American mercenaries, the deaths of thousands (perhaps, hundreds of thousands) of Iraqi civilians, the forced migration of 300.000+ Iraqi civilians from their homes, the deaths of 100s (more probably 1000s) of innocent Pakistanis and Afgans, invasion of American citizens’ privacy through systematic eves dropping, the largest deficit in American history, the loss of American prestige and global leadership, a decrease in American security, etc. … Instead, in news coverage like this, America's fourth estate 'explains' to us that the election results were 'all about money". The implication of such 'analysis' is that another $800 million on the Republican-side would have assured that American voters would have voted for the continuation of these policies. And assured more tax cuts for the wealthy, wind-falls for the oil companies and no bid contracts for the mercenaries. Sounds like a good investment for the wealthy, oil companies and mercenaries. And, no doubt, they'll be back next time with plenty more bucks, because, like the media, they believe American's votes are all for sale at the right price. Or maybe, just maybe, American citizens have really had enough.

There is another tape out where a bunch of Obama’s supporters are asked if they mind that Sarah Palin was his VP pick. They were all find with the pick.

More people donated to Obama because they wanted him to win.
Less folks (mainly sad white and old) donated to mcpalin

Mr. Tapper,

First of all, do these totals include primary election spending? If so, this is extremely misleading, as Obama was running an intense race against Hillary Clinton from March-June, while McCain was already the presumptive nominee. This sort of spending by Obama was generally considered, on sites such as yours, to be a detriment to Obama, not a benefit (insofar as the party was being divided, etc.). Second, do the "party" totals include ONLY the DNC and RNC, or are national congressional committees (such as DSCC and DCCC) included as well? I suspect the latter, given that the RNC had a much publicized vast monetary lead over the DNC all election long. If this is the case, your numbers are even MORE misleading, given that that money was used solely for congressional candidates and not Obama himself. I hope these facts can be cleared up or corrected in a future revision. Thanks.

Never underestimate a thug from Chicago.

absolutely shameful.that makes me want to give up my right to vote when obama can buy his way into the presidency.we need to limit the amount of money that can be spent on an election to any office in this country.i am sick of the entire mess.