It looks to me as if Barack Obama just blew Hillary Clinton away in the money game. Not only does he have twice as many donors, he almost certainly raised more primary money in the first quarter than she did. Her reported total was $26 million, but her campaign is being coy about how much of that was for the general election campaign rather than the primaries. His reported total was $25 million, of which $23.5 million is available for the primaries. (I suppose his computers, unlike hers, are loaded with Excel.)
If in fact a big chunk of Clinton’s money came from big donors who have now maxed out, Clinton has less room to grow than Obama does. This should have been the quarter when the Establishment candidate with the huge rolodex did best against the outsider who is still building name recognition and a money machine. From Obama’s viewpoint, it should only get better from here.
Query Has anyone looked into the question of how the huge sums now being raised change the nature of the game, especially in Iowa and New Hampshire?
Update Yep. In primary-spendable money raised in the quarter, it was Obama $23.5 million, Clinton $20 million.