|
With the late release of Barack Obama's reports everyone expected his numbers to be high, but not this high. As you probably already know, he has raised $25 million for the first-quarter. $25 million is insanely close to Hillary Clinton's $26 million, which was still seen as mind-blowing. Considering Howard Dean didn't reach those types of numbers until September of '03, the fact that not one candidate has reached those sort of numbers in the first-quarter, but two, shows that this election cycle is going to be more than expensive.
Previous to this week's you show me yours and I'll show you mine with dollars, Hillary was seen as the absolute front-runner because of her substantial fundraising base. The Clinton name, and her reputation for being a go-getter has carried Hillary far; most expected into the White House, or at least into the Democratic Primaries. She has campaigned on the message that she could not be beaten, and it was actually working for her. That's what we thought at least until the reports were released.
Now it looks as though Hillary is no longer on top. The fundraising efforts of Obama have placed him on the tail of Hillary, and given all other candidates a run for their money. Past elections reflect an inconsistent showing of what money will do for a candidate's status in the primaries. Phil Gramm was the leading Republican in 1995 and John Edwards was the lead fundraiser at this point in 2003, and neither one of them won the nomination. But, in 1999, both Bush and Gore were their party money leaders and won.
Since there are two candidates that are so close in the fundraising race, what does that mean for the primaries? Who will take the lead during the next quarter, and how will it affect the Republican primaries? As promising and exciting as the Democratic Primaries are, only one thing is for sure, Hillary is no longer inevitable.
|
