Clark Raises More Than $3.5M in Two Weeks

Mods: Please delete if duplicate

WASHINGTON Oct. 5 ? Wesley Clark raised more than $3.5 million in the first two weeks of his presidential race, beating some of his Democratic rivals who have been campaigning for months.

Roughly two-thirds of Clark's money was raised over the Internet, campaign spokeswoman Kym Spell said.

More:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031005_10.html

Noted without comment

Didn't he raise that over the past 6 months? I mean, wasn't like half of that put together during the wait for him to announce? If so thats a lie that he raised it in two weeks. Please clarify.

I know, because I belonged to Draft Wesley Clark movement

in $1000+ contributions, about half of what Dean managed to raise in less than $100 contributions over the last 10 days.

Why do you say in $1000 contributions? I gave him $50 and $50 and $10, and very many others did too.

I do know, however, a gentleman who gave Dean $2000 at a $2000 Dean dinner. But, hey, that's just facts, and that's not what we're dealing with...

http://www.opensecrets.org

Care to bet me the maximum that Dean's average 3rd quarter donor gave less than half of Clark's?

dean 87 bucks
clark 167 bucks.

so that must mean dEan is twice as good
as clark.

167 is LESS than double 87? How could this be? I thought only Dean was the candidate with grassroots appeal? Clark is just a DLC stalking horse who could never appeal to the common man, or the non-rich political activist.

Say it ain't so!

Absolutely not. Let us make groundless aspersions on the types of folks who support a given candidate. And, when pressed with contradictory numbers, let's take refuge by saying it's too early to make any types of definite statements whatever.

That's the ticket.

Not the average DONATION.

Perhaps you can figure out why it would be easier to game one figure than the other.

Because you know that Dean people have
also given more than once. So the 87 dollar
number could also be "gamed" as you put it.

But I am not accusing anyone of anything.
You seem to suggest that the Clark campaign
has somehow gamed it to look like the avg donation
is low. Frankly, who the f would take the time
to do that. It's kind of pointless. Secondly,
I think they are just glad to get some money to
pay for a campaign.

The more you go popping off in pro Clark threads,
the more I can tell you try to spin anything to
make Clark look bad.

In fact, if Clark really had 21,000 individual donors, I'm more impressed than I thought I'd be with his contributor profile.

Are secret plants by the DLC? I mean, why would you think that he didn't have a broad base of grassroots support?

You came in here to trash the place, and then you realized--after some stubborn asshole fanatics like me did some work--than maybe there was less to denigrate than you thought.

That's all it is.

"his meetup numbers are secret plants by the DLC?"

Unfortunately some people here seem to believe this.

It's :tinfoilhat: time

lol. I bet the DLC has taken over meetup.com :)

or anything like that. Everybody knows, only Dean can have grassroots supporters. :eyes:

And yes, that makes Dean AT LEAST twice as good as Clark.

And yes, that makes Dean AT LEAST twice as good as Clark.

I don't know about the $87 number. But:

87 * 2 = 174, which is greater than 167. Maybe Dean is (167/87) as good as Clark in some weird nonsense standard, but not twice as good.

(Sorry to interrupt things with simple facts. Sorry.)

It's okay if you are. Because he is one. :7

rounding the numbers a bit, but you
are right Dean is 167/87ths better than
Clark. Numbers do not lie.

Of the Democrats, Clark is the highest risk candidate, Kerry is the second highest risk candidate, Lieberman is the third highest risk candidate and Edwards is the fourth highest risk candidate.

I'm currently of the mind that only Clark and Kerry are slick enough to be possibly (certainly not definitely) more useful to the US imperialism crew than Bush.

I'd have to research Kerry's "hidden" career a lot more if he got the nod.

I read the average donation amount to Clark's campaign was $167.00

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

"Clark received donations from 21,000 people, with contributions averaging $167."

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031005_10.html

DH and I gave him a total of $200 via small increments since he announced. We're going to try to give the max this quarter.

counting the receipt numbers until the cutoff at midnight at one of the Clark groups. I guess Kim had a different cut off time than we watchers had.

21,000 donations
2/3 on web.

what does that mean?

do you mean the median donation?

number of uniquely different individuals who donated.

If Clark has released that information, please direct me to it.

Well, I'd be interested too.

My guess would be that Clark got some quite large donations, from donors who donated once or possibly twice. (the fat-cats and rich Dems)

And many, many small donations from folks (who, like me, donated for the first times in their lives) who gave between one and, say, four or five times in small increments.

individuals. Many donars contributed more than once on the website. At the reporting cutoff time, there were 23,000 total contributions.

average donation....

Average donor? Do you think Dean doesn't
have people donation 10 dollars again and again?

Well, if the AP news story is worded correctly (which may not be the
case), then they said 21,000 people donated, and that the average donation so $167.
So what they're saying is that the average donor gave $167.
Math check 167*21000= $3507000
Backwards 3500000 total dollars/ 21000 people= ~$167/donor

Now they could have misworded it and meant 21000 donations, not donors.
But if true, $167 is the answer to how much did the average donor give.

You do the math.

He had just short of $1.8 million in pledges from the DraftClark movement before he announced. Last I heard they were not counting those pledges in their post-announcement fundraising totals, so the $3.5 million would be in addition to the pre-campaign pledges. I could very well be wrong, however. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am.

Didn't raise too much money itself. It raised pledged for donations. It seems absolutely right that that money should be counted as part of the total.

Clark's doing reasonably well.

the draft stuff was only pledges, not
actually money. some of those pledges
were probably fulfilled during the 2 wk period.

I had read somewhere that you were allowed to pledge the $4K your allowed to donate now and after the primaries, so I'm sure some did do that if true and so only could have fulfilled half of their pledge at this time. I'm sure others didn't fulfill their pledge yet at all and may do it at a later time. I'd be very interested to know how much of the $3.5 mil is previously pledged money.

I am another of those little fish, I gave $50 because that's all I can spare. I'll give more when I can. I wasn't a pledge person either, didn't want to get stuck with no money when they asked me to fulfill my pledge

as a candidate? i read here, was it just yesterday(?), that he had finally filed so how could he legally raise funds in excessive of 5000 without timely filing?

from the day he began raising money to file with the FEC, which he did this week:

http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/P40002792/

Dean still on top of money race
…
Simon Rosenberg, who heads the centrist New Democrat Network, put the Dean bounty in perspective by noting that in a 10-candidate field the former Vermont governor was able to raise 50 percent more than Bill Clinton raised in the best quarter of his 1996 re-election effort. Rosenberg called Dean’s feat “almost miraculous” and added, “We have to recognize that the Dean campaign is the best-run campaign we’ve ever seen.”

Taking the party-wide view, Rosenberg pointed to what almost no one else has noticed: Based on the preliminary estimates for the third quarter, the 10-person Democratic field collectively will have outraised the Bush campaign, an indication of how fired up Democratic donors are.

“If Bush is this supposed fund-raising king, then this so-called ‘weak’ Democratic field — to use Karl Rove’s word — is outraising him,” Rosenberg said.
…
http://www.msnbc.com/news/974339.asp
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=52916

They might have all the money, but there's only 2% of them and 98% of us!

People power to the rescue!

yeah.

The divisiveness on DU can be really trying...

Kudos to the candidates who can drum up support in voluteers and monetary donations.

I wish Bob Graham had been a bit more lucrative and hope Edwards stays in the game.

of that two week period.

I'd have thought that being the last great hope of the $2,000 establishment Democrat club would have been worth more. Ah well, I guess with all those lawyers and brokers who already maxed on Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt and Lieberman, Clark's fundraising effort could be a might difficult.

No.

Because I saw that $1million had been pledged before he ran. It was on the news.

What about those very many donors to Clark who have given $100 or less. I am one, and so are many others.

I suppose the 30,000+ Meetup folks who have signed up for Clark, despite him running for such a short time, are all elite-fat-cat Establishment DLCers, right? I mean, it must be true, since Dean is the only grassroots candidate, since Dean said that he's the only grassroots candidate?

I mean, to think otherwise must be anathema, right?

I don't just don't like articles that don't give any perspective.

Dean's fundraising is always compared to Bush's.

Meanwhile, Clark's get compared to third tier candidates even though he's already been annointed as the frontrunner by most Party insiders.

Unfortunately since Clark got in so late--bad move in my opinion, but whatever--there's no good way to get fundraising perspective, since the primaries aren't THAT far away.

At minimum, it suggests that since Clark could get a good amount in a short time, he could get a good amount in a longer time.

is that a candidate who has just been in the race for TWO WEEKS has outraised candidates who have been in it for months, as a result of his grassroots.

When discussing Dean, and Bush, this is not the same point being made. See the difference?

Quite frankly it doesn't really matter too much what the party insiders think. They're not the ones pushing the Draft movement, not the ones who made Clark the second biggest Meetup group, not the ones giving 2/3rds of Clark's money through the internet, not the ones being polled to put Clark at the toptier, and not the ones who are going to push Clark to victory in the primaries. We are. We're the ones, in our thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and more, who will donate small amounts and go to the primary voting booths and pull the lever for Clark.

Dean may be a grassroots candidate. But so is Clark. Clark is our grassroots candidate.

Of course, you're free to keep saying that only Dean has grassroots, and that kucinich, Clark, and all the rest are not grassroots candidates.

why the defensive tone?


-ph :smoke:

The post was about Clark's fundraising totals, no one else's. The response, unfortuantely, focused upon:

(1) Comparing the total with Dr. Dean's; and
(2) Denigrating the money raised as nothing more that fat-cat money (which is false), instead of supporters who really believe in Clark just as Dean supporters believe in Dean.

It's defensive and noxious and false. Pump up your candidate, but don't try to tear ours down without sound reason.

the money raised as nothing more that fat-cat money is false?

Btw, he was pumping up his candidate, which is easy to do as Dean is the number 1 fundraiser.

I gave and I'm not a fat cat. Wanna see my tax return?


-ph :smoke:

"Can you prove the money raised as nothing more that fat-cat money is false?"

First, you're asking me to prove a negative, which is at least prima facie unfair. Second, the average donation is 167 dollars, which, however you slice it, means that a lot of non-fat cats gave (like yours truly). Third, it was not just pumping up Dean--which is fine. This was casting untrue aspersions on Clark's base of support. Lots of Dean folks can't reconcile themselvse to the fact that Clark has SERIOUS grassroots support and is not some DLC puppet.

Sure, pump Dean. He's raising tons of dough and has revolutionized fudnraising in the Dem party and possibly in the US overall. But don't try to put down my guy and say at you were doing was just trying to pump up yours.

Because that's patently false.

Do you have a link to that figure?

P.S. I will expose The DLC Production, clark any and every time I feel like it. You see, I believe it is my job to protect my party from lying ass Trojan Horses.

is in the first post in this thread.

Sheeesh!

Do you have a link to that figure?

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031005_10.html

P.S. I will expose The DLC Production, clark any and every time I feel like it. You see, I believe it is my job to protect my party from lying ass Trojan Horses.

Please calm down. This was not, in any way, intended to be an anti-Dean thread or to take away from Dean's fundraising successes. Dean seems like a great candidate and I am definitely voting for him if he wins the nomination. Dean has done a wonderful job fundraising and I applaud him for it. I was simply posting a progress report for General Clark's campaign.

before jumping in with comments.

but shouldn't you want to at least have an idea of what you're talking about before you start screaming at people. Perhaps, Seventhson, you have an involuntary, subconscious prejudice against General Clark? That's the only way I can possibly interpret your comments...

n/t

The tone on DU has greatly improved,
haven't you noticed?

You are just pissing on Clark. Good job.

who are giving money in hopes of a Dean Debacle in 2004?
That would be a very interesting number to find out.

Don't bust a vein, Dean supporters. I'm just posting a progress report. No reason to be so defensive. I like Dean. Clark is my favorite but I will gladly vote for Dean in the general if he gets the nomination. Chill out.

This shows he's got great grassroots support. 2/3rds of the donations were from the internet. Average donation was $167. And he's got the second biggest Meetup group (hardly party elitists). And he's only been in the race for 2weeks!!!!

My thoughts exactly! Not bad for a newcomer only 2 weeks into the race.

We have to prove that the article didn't lie. We have to prove that we are not Rove moles...We have to prove...Aw, crap! It's Subday. Better read Doonsburry!

The American people are supporting DEMOCRATS! It's finally sinking in with them what BushCo has done to them, and they are voting with their wallets. The totals raised by ALL candidates, Clark included, clearly show this. :thumbsup:

On average.

So what is your point?

We are plutocrats paying our way into opressing the poor - the real grassroots - who can only be Dean supporters and no one else's! My $25 was filthy DLC money! (od MIC, or PNAC or ROVE's). You found us out - no one can fool you!

I had little doubt the General would pull in some cash! His Q4 numbers will be outstanding, I believe!

DTH

I donated $50 to Dean some time ago.

But after exploring Clark's personal history and seeing him interviewed several times, I decided that he is who I want for my president. We sent him $250. and will contribute again.

Tim donated $10 + Bill donated $5 but Beth borrowed $3 and loaned it to Fred who put it with his $13 dollars and donated it + Gerry donated $181.50 of which $22.75 was a pay-day advance that $3.72 was interest while Greg took out a second mortgage in order to donate the average $167 because Susan could only donate $1000 if Mary would pay her back the $17 she borrowed for the Mary Kay items she bought on the internet but Chris pledged $500 then sent in only two $150 donations along with an I.O.U. for the rest at a later date……..

Yep! $167





CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site


So I Read This Book