Source: Edwards Appearance On Morning Shows Brings In Big Fundraising Bucks Today

Comments (47)

donna L. wrote on December 31, 2007 1:40 PM:

Comforting to know how many fools there are out there. A fellow commenter on Politico says it best:

"A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. A vote for Edwards is a vote for Hillary."

framecop wrote on December 31, 2007 1:43 PM:

I just hung up on one of them, lol.

Not because I don't want to give any money, but they called me while I'm in a library, and I don't really feel like having that conversation with a bunch of nosey people sitting around staring in my face.

Besides, it's a "LIBRARY." It's supposed to be quiet, lol.

diogu wrote on December 31, 2007 1:44 PM:

Talking about exaggeration. Did Edwards rake more money than Clinton, Obama or Ron Paul get in 1 day? Of course not. You did not even tell how much in dollars he raked in.

TPM is slowly becoming a spin zone. You are beginning to lose the thing that made this site unique.

Josh, please rescue this site from your employees.

Anonymous wrote on December 31, 2007 1:45 PM:

donna L. wrote on December 31, 2007 1:40 PM: Comforting to know how many fools there are out there. A fellow commenter on Politico says it best:

"A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. A vote for Edwards is a vote for Hillary.

Go shove it, donna L. You must be an Obama supporter, because that IGNORANT TALKING POINT is played out.

If John Edwards wins Iowa, Clinton and Obama will both "TANK" in New Hampshire, and Edwards will surge there and win NH, and then it's basically guaranteed that Nevada labor unions will rally to him and he'll easily take Nevada, and SC will come back around to their "hometown boy" (John Edwards).

In the meanwhile, after an Iowa win, money will pour into John Edwards' campaign from MANY FORMER BARACK OBAMA SUPPORTERS, as well as John Edwards' supporters and other Democrats out there. The liberal media (online blogs and magazines like "THE NATION", and AirAmericaRadio) will begin saying it's time to rally behind John Edwards and dump Obama so that all of that "anti-Clinton" vote is behind one candidate.

Edwards will easily raise around $15 million in the few weeks, and will have more than enough money for the long haul, limitations or not.

The Obama campaign, KNOWS, that this is what will happen, which is why they preemptively started this "VOTE EDWARDS, GET HILLARY" crap.

They think they're smart, but I'm smarter.

Michael A wrote on December 31, 2007 1:50 PM:

Interesting that this gets "released" by the edwards campaign a few short hours after obama's campaign points out that edwards doesn't have the cash to compete. Coincidence? I think not.

Everything But Yule Brenner wrote on December 31, 2007 1:53 PM:

Love that internecine squabbling! Let's bloody each other up real good-like, eh?

And here I thought it was the *Republicans* that were the problem. Silly ol' me.

scooter in brooklyn wrote on December 31, 2007 2:03 PM:

well, the post reminded me to stop by edwards site and add a few bucks.

telecom wrote on December 31, 2007 2:15 PM:

Edwards may be behind in the polls, and may not be able to pull in the money he's going to need, but he is running a great campaign.

edwardian wrote on December 31, 2007 2:16 PM:

Comforting to know how many fools there are out there. A fellow commenter on Politico says it best:

"A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. A vote for Edwards is a vote for Hillary."
Not in the primary, Dear Donna. Pay attention, will you? I will vote for any Democrat in the general election but it doesn't hurt to send a message to the party that we're further left than they think.

Zach wrote on December 31, 2007 2:18 PM:

I'm not an expert in this, but isn't having a greater # of average donations per person a bad thing? Obviously it depends on the distribution of the size of your donations, but you'd obviously prefer 20 people giving $500 to 10 people giving $500 twice and coming closer to the contribution limit.

Plus, since Edwards is gaming for matching funds, multiple donations from single donors topping $250 total won't be matched.

And yeah, reporting this story w/out asking your source for the actual stats on the fundraising this hour beyond the total is a little shady. Virtually all of the donations could be under $100, but you could pair that with 5-10% of them being bundled, maxed-out donations. Maybe the campaign received its ActBlue check this morning, or maybe a few bundlers cashed out timed w/ the TV appearances. That seems just as likely as folks watching Today and realizing that there's a campaign afoot and they have money to spare.

Keith wrote on December 31, 2007 2:18 PM:

The 1.8 figure is only relevant if Edwards and Obama have a similar number of donors. Last quarter they reported 150M+ donors. Obama's numbers were 350M+ donors (at present his number is up to 473M+).

Anon: That's some real wishful thinking on your part.

waka waka wrote on December 31, 2007 2:31 PM:

Anonymous made a funny:
If John Edwards wins Iowa, Clinton and Obama will both "TANK" in New Hampshire, and Edwards will surge there and win NH, and then it's basically guaranteed that Nevada labor unions will rally to him and he'll easily take Nevada, and SC will come back around to their "hometown boy" (John Edwards).

In the meanwhile, after an Iowa win, money will pour into John Edwards' campaign from MANY FORMER BARACK OBAMA SUPPORTERS, as well as John Edwards' supporters and other Democrats out there. The liberal media (online blogs and magazines like "THE NATION", and AirAmericaRadio) will begin saying it's time to rally behind John Edwards and dump Obama so that all of that "anti-Clinton" vote is behind one candidate.

Edwards will easily raise around $15 million in the few weeks, and will have more than enough money for the long haul, limitations or not.

The Obama campaign, KNOWS, that this is what will happen, which is why they preemptively started this "VOTE EDWARDS, GET HILLARY" crap.

They think they're smart, but I'm smarter.

And then Edwards will give me a magic pony!

Terre wrote on December 31, 2007 2:32 PM:

Comforting to know how many fools there are out there.

Takes one to know one, doesn't it?

Oh, and thanks for keeping it on topic.

framecop wrote on December 31, 2007 2:38 PM:

And then Edwards will give me a magic pony!

Hah, ha, ha. It's gonna be funny. InsiderAdvantage is picking Edwards to win Iowa (based on a reallocation):

Edwards 41%
Clinton 34%
Obama 25%

Like I said the other day (when I said Edwards will get around 42%), if Edwards is at least TIED with Clinton and Obama "STATEWIDE" in Iowa, he's going to win easily, because he holds a strong advantage in the smaller, rural areas of the state.

I'll be right again, as usual.

Using the reallocation methodology InsiderAdvantage used in 2004 – which correctly indicated a fairly comfortable win for John Kerry – our new poll reveals that, if the caucuses were held today, the reallocated final outcome would be: Edwards: 41% Clinton: 34% Obama: 25%

http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_1231_103.aspx

randron wrote on December 31, 2007 2:42 PM:

I got news for you, donnaL: a vote for Edwards is a vote for Edwards! It's a primary, after all ... not the general election. Since when did we EVER have just two candidates in the early stages of a presidential primary campaign? My God, the Republicans had Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson run in their primary! At least we Dems have more than one or two good people to choose from ... the Repubicans don't have ANY!

Lis wrote on December 31, 2007 2:56 PM:

I just did a search on Huffington Post's fundrace2008 site of donations from Iowa based on the ZIP codes of Des Moines and Ames (I'm going to do Cedar Rapids next) and found something interesting.

Please keep in mind that I don't know one city in Iowa from another and so my views here are unbiased:

DES MOINES

ZIP 50310

Clinton: 2 donors, $515 total
Obama: 6 donors, $2332 total
Edwards: 4 donors, $3,627 total

Aside from that, there were 6 Republican donations, mostly for Ron Paul.

ZIP 50311

Clinton: 1, $2300
Obama: 5, $1900
Edwards: 3, $2,169

Also, 2 Biden supporters at $850, and 12 Republican donations.

ZIP 50314 (there were no contributions made from ZIP codes 50312-13)

Clinton: 0
Obama: 1 $255
Edwards: 2 $750

All three of the above donors were women. There was 1 Republican donation, for McCain.

ZIP 50315

Clinton: 3, $5450
Obama: 3, $908
Edwards: 0

Three Republican contributions.

AMES

ZIP 50010

Clinton: 0
Obama: 5, %170
Edwards: 3, $1,000

Richardson 3, $850 and Dennis Kucinich one, at $911. Seven Republican donations.

ZIP 50011

Clinton: 0
Obama: 1, $500
Edwards: 1, $500
Kucinich: 1, $500

No other candidates, no Republicans. All three of these donations were made by one man, Jerry Lamsa, no profession listed. I have one question: Does this guy OWN all of ZIP code 50011? Just curious.

ZIP 50014 (no donations from 50012-13)

Clinton: 0
Obama: 2, $1000
Edwards: 7, $3085

Also, heavy activity for Richardson and Biden, as well as 8 Republican donations.

So, what did Hillary do to Ames that no one will give her a penny? Just curious.

Cedar Rapids might take me a while. There are a lot of ZIP codes. If I don't come back in tonight, I'd like to wish you all a happy new year. I hope that 2008 will be good to us.

Peace,
Lis

Jasper wrote on December 31, 2007 2:56 PM:

I gave to the Edwards campaign back in July. It was the first time I'd ever given money directly to a political campaign. Up until then, I'd given to 501c3s and c4s, and done GOTV. Edwards has staked out some truly progressive policy positions, and his "no compromise" rhetoric, while I know it's just rhetoric, is the flaming sword I wish more Democrats would pick up instead of letting Republicans go unchecked with their big stick politikin'...

Lis wrote on December 31, 2007 3:08 PM:

OOPS, my bad. Here's a correction to Ames, ZIP code 50010 (I was typing very fast):

AMES

ZIP 50010

Clinton: 0
Obama: 5, $5,170
Edwards: 3, $1,000

Also, I just tried my own ZIP code in NY, 10803, and found this:

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=loc&addr=&zip=10803&search=Search

PELHAM, NY

10803

Clinton: 12 donors, several in the high thousands, some small.

Obama: 17 donors, also several in the thousands (check out "Cosby's wife") and some small (like mine).

Edwards: 4 donors totalling $4,850

On to Cedar Rapids sometime this afternoon....

Lis

brownbuffalo wrote on December 31, 2007 3:08 PM:

[i]Everything But Yule Brenner wrote on December 31, 2007 1:53 PM:
Love that internecine squabbling! Let's bloody each other up real good-like, eh?

And here I thought it was the *Republicans* that were the problem. Silly ol' me.[/i]

Supporting Edwards over other Democrats = "internecine squabbling" What a shockingly stupid characterization. As they say: A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

The Democratic Party is broken. There needs to be internecine fighting before we can fix the Party.

The time is now for better Democrats (like Edwards!)

DoubtingThomas wrote on December 31, 2007 3:15 PM:

Can I make a deal with all the Obama supporters out there?

You vote for Obama in the primary and I'll vote for Edwards in the primary and we'll see where the chips fall.

I promise I won't accuse Obama of mouthing right-wing talking points if you promise you won't shout " A vote for Edwards is a vote for Hilary".

This is a primary after all, where we each get to vote for our ideal candidate. Once an eventual nominee is selected let's all promise to back that nominee whether it be Obama, Edwards or Clinton.

Then let's all elect a Democrat in 2008.

That way everyone wins.

Ron wrote on December 31, 2007 3:31 PM:

I'm glad Edwards hasn't raked in the big bucks... tells me he is legitimate when the establishent is against him. If he takes Iowa and NH it will be a slap in the face to the corporate whores and money grubbers.

Prut wrote on December 31, 2007 3:33 PM:

While I hope I'm wrong, I fear it's too late for good news about Mr. Edwards' campaign. He missed the boat by not aggressively adopting Kucinich positions earlier in the campaign. The country is in sync with progressive ideals, the movement has merely lacked the right spokesman. Edwards is finding this out now, but it's late in the game.

lambert strether wrote on December 31, 2007 3:38 PM:

Now Obama's going after "trial lawyers."

Since when did repeating Republican talking points bring "unity," or "light"?

And did repeating Republican talking points become a "new kind" of politics when I wasn't watching?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_30_archive.html#4527640556289780194

synykyl wrote on December 31, 2007 3:52 PM:

"A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. A vote for Edwards is a vote for Hillary."

Even if this were true, so what? Hillary Clinton is a fine candidate, as are Edwards and Obama.

Anon in Indy wrote on December 31, 2007 3:53 PM:

Edwards still doesn't get as much free press as Clinton or Obama, but his populist message hits a chord in many people. It's unsurprising that after appearing on major television outlets, Edwards gets a boost. He needs it, and deserves it.

The media still does a piss poor job of analyzing candidates positions on issues. They're far more interested in who's being more catty or who's got the better celebrity endorcement this week. Or even who's getting more money this hour.

So this article is bittersweet. I like Edwards (I like most of the Democratic candidates.) But I dislike that it continues to focus on dross rather than substance. The *story* should be why the candidate's message seems to resonate with donors. I don't CARE how much money a campain has -- why does the media?

dr2chase wrote on December 31, 2007 4:02 PM:

Some of us are still not sure whether we like Edwards or Obama better. Obama's made some mistakes recently that seemed pretty serious to me -- mandateless universal health care (it doesn't work, you can look it up in an economics textbook), saying things that sound an awful lot like Republican talking points (social security crisis, trial lawyers) and this negative stuff about a vote for Edwards really being a vote for Hillary.

To get my vote, I need to know that a candidate will beat the Republican candidate, and that once elected they will do a good job. Initially, I favored Obama, but he's made enough mistakes recently that now I'm leaning towards Edwards.

Anonymous wrote on December 31, 2007 4:06 PM:

Exactly what is the story here? If Greg Sargent's self-reporting sources aren't willing to give total dollars and total donors, what exactly is the significance of the largest one hour? What, for example, is the average of hourly giving to Edwards online?

Greg must have had a quota to meet before heading out for New Years eve.

brewmn wrote on December 31, 2007 4:11 PM:

"Now Obama's going after "trial lawyers.""

You're late to the party, and your fifteen seconds of fame are up, dude. Now shut up and go away.

nogo war wrote on December 31, 2007 4:26 PM:

I have been arrested 5 times for both civil resistance that was legal and illegal.
My not guilty's came when I (we)had lawyers defending me(us)....
Damn straight I want a successful trial lawyer defending me..us.

by the way if people don't know by now that Politico is just another wingbat machine trying to pass, just read the comments.

Dems have had enough of Harry and Nancy caving-in. Dodd stood tall in the Senate while Biden, Clinton and Obama did not...

Class warfare...Damn straight.. "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Happy New Year....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-xIulyVsG8

jf wrote on December 31, 2007 4:32 PM:

Edwards has all of Ron Paul's appealing qualities, all of Kucinich's ire against corporatists, and absolutely none of the crazy. I wish he'd say some more about how the war in Iraq was sold on a bed of lies, about how this administration's friends and family are receiving an interesting share of the spoils, and about how the GWOT, while being specific about what threats do indeed exist, has been overblown and hyped.

Edwards suffers from many coats of mainstream media paint, and while I will stipulate to the possibility of a scendario similar to that described above, where he snowballs from Iowa, unless Obama supporters turn to him very quickly, Hillary has the Giuliani strategy in her back pocket. If you doubt that, history proves you can lose NH by 8 points and declare victory.

Edwards is receiving the support he is because of those issues he appears to embrace in spite of the mainstream media argument that it makes him less electable in the general. He needs to make the GWOT one of those issues, by re-emphasizing his willingness to nail down every lie, every abuse, every aspect of how we are not being made safer. Port security, human intelligence, international aid, diplomacy with our friends, dialogue with our enemies. Not global resource grabs in the form of vendetta cum nation building. He needs to take the Ron Paul supporters when they open their eyes to the whole Paul story.

If Edwards could convince me that he will restore our Constitution and work to make all people equal in the eyes of the law, that would round out my ideal candidate. But he seems too wary, even today, of appearing to be weak on issues of national security. In the real, non mainstream media, world, the strongest guy is rarely the one with the most bluster. If he could dispel the fear caused by the GWOT hype, make people feel less afraid, he will appear stronger- not weaker.

I would be very excited to see Edwards elected President, as I would Obama. Hillary would make a fantastic President, but I really don't want someone who fits so nicely into the mold of our current Democratic congressional leadership under Pelosi and Reid.

Anonymous wrote on December 31, 2007 5:00 PM:

brownbuffalo wrote:

Supporting Edwards over other Democrats = "internecine squabbling" What a shockingly stupid characterization. As they say: A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

BB -- I happen to be an Edwards supporter. My post doesn't show me to be an Edwards supporter because the inflammatory posts are coming from all directions. One can debate the candiates' merits without resorting to villifying the other candidates (hey, we're all gonna have to rally around the eventual winner next year unless we want to see our country make a farewell swirl down the crapper under another Republican prez), or hurling school-yard invectives at one another.

Just sayin'.

Everything But Yule Brenner wrote on December 31, 2007 5:01 PM:

BTB, Anon @ 5 PM is me.

Everything But Yule Brenner wrote on December 31, 2007 5:08 PM:

Oh, and, PS -- if you're one of the folks here who can and do debate civilly, no need to take umbrage at my post.

OldFogey wrote on December 31, 2007 5:13 PM:

To FrameCop:
"It's a library. It's supposed to be quiet." Turn off your cell phone!

Keith wrote on December 31, 2007 5:26 PM:

Nogo:

A criminal defense lawyer is not a trial lawyer. One defends people (like yourself) charged with violating a criminal statute. The other prosecutes civil claims on behalf of individuals for a 33% of the judgment plus legal costs (which can mean that the lawyer gets 50% of the judgment).

dr2chase wrote on December 31, 2007 6:44 PM:

The other prosecutes civil claims on behalf of individuals for a 33% of the judgment plus legal costs (which can mean that the lawyer gets 50% of the judgment).

Unless he loses, in which case, nothing. It sounds reasonable enough to me, and not that much different from taking a risk in a startup.

ava wrote on December 31, 2007 6:56 PM:

The Biden campaign just ripped Edwards on his electability argument. See below for the link to the memo they sent out. Edwards is doing the same thing he did in 2004 where he bragged that, as a southerner, he’d be able to deliver southern states. The Kerry/Edwards ticket didn’t win even ONE southern state. They didn’t even win Edwards’ home state of North Carolina. Heck, they didn’t even win his home COUNTY.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/31/541133.aspx

Dan wrote on December 31, 2007 7:40 PM:

Donna (first poster, and Obama-troll), you are the fool, apparently. A vote for Edwards is a vote for Hillary? Lest you actually believe the MSM meme that Edwards is a non-candidate, look at the latest polls in Iowa.

And for good measure, I'll state my belief that Obama is Hillary Lite -- all "hope" and "compromise," without the will to *fight* for what is right.

framecop wrote on December 31, 2007 7:50 PM:

The Biden campaign just ripped Edwards on his electability argument. See below for the link to the memo they sent out. Edwards is doing the same thing he did in 2004 where he bragged that, as a southerner, he’d be able to deliver southern states. The Kerry/Edwards ticket didn’t win even ONE southern state. They didn’t even win Edwards’ home state of North Carolina. Heck, they didn’t even win his home COUNTY.

1. John Kerry DID NOT RUN ONE SINGLE CAMPAIGN AD IN NORTH CAROLINA, and probably didn't run them in most southern states.

2. John Edwards' approval rating in NC in July 2004 was over 50%.

3. John Edwards would have defeated Richard Burr had he run for reelection, around 53% to 47% according to most surveys.

4. Polls today show Edwards defeating all Republicans in NC (December's Public Policy Polling & Elon University earlier in the year), defeating Romney and Giuliani in Oklahoma while tying Huckabee and losing to McCain and Thompson there, and also show that Edwards would defeat all Republicans in IOWA, which Clinton and Obama do not.

Maybe Joe Biden needs to go somewhere and GET A CLUE.

John Kerry didn't run one single campaign ad in North Carolina.

John Kerry didn't run one single campaign ad in North Carolina.

John Kerry didn't run one single campaign ad in North Carolina.

John Kerry didn't run one single campaign ad in North Carolina.

John Kerry didn't run one single campaign ad in North Carolina.

John Edwards was not the problem with that ticket.

AK wrote on December 31, 2007 8:34 PM:

While we are in a backwater here in Minneapolis - nearly all of my hardcore democratic friends - in ultra-liberal Minneapolis are really excited to see Edwards emerging from the shadows of the Clinton/Obama circus. John offers a compelling progressive view for the future - and has the experience to run hard against whichever dinosaur the republicons put up. Hillary and her fence sitting - and Obama's too early for prime time candidacy make along with his strength on his own merits - make him our candidate of choice.

I will be sending him more dough tonight.

How about: Edwards/Obama 2008 a bright progressive team for the challenges we'll face in the coming years?

oppositionradio wrote on December 31, 2007 8:44 PM:

what?

Nader throws his support to Edwards?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7647.html

he's 8 years too late - but does this help him pull in the anti-establishment vote?

wow.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 31, 2007 9:13 PM:

Such rancorous comments. I am especially disappointed in my fellow Obama supporters, because we have little to gain from burning bridges to the Edwards camp. In any event, regarding the story at the top of this thread, I am delighted to see that Edwards' prospects are picking up. He is a good candidate, and if he manages to pull out a win it will be richly deserved.

'Nam vet - II Corps wrote on December 31, 2007 9:29 PM:

So far today I see no comment or mention anywhere regards the NYT piece/profile of John Edwards and his wife.

Yes, it is the paper's first profile of all of the candidates, but I was left aghast after reading it. I've been behind Edwards since last spring. I hadn't known much about his background until today. After I finished reading it I said to myself, "I haven't felt like this since before RFK died!".

I imagine that the Times' profile will be commented on and cited often in years to come. A Hollywood script writer could not have come up with anything more compelling. It is astonishing.

Underpant Gnomes for Obama wrote on December 31, 2007 10:01 PM:

I don't begrudge the Obamaniacs from pulling out the vote for Edwards = win for Clinton. When Obama first entered the race I said it would strengthen Clinton's chances by splintering the not-Clinton votes/money/volunteers.
I do find their logic a bit bemusing - voting for Edwards (winner) over Obama (third) somehow helps Clinton (second). One would think voting for Edwards and increasing his margin of victory over Clinton would do more damage to her perceived inevitability than voting for a candidate she beats. Perhaps the new kind of politics works like this 1)come in third repeatedly 2) 3) win the nomination.

lisaleigh wrote on January 1, 2008 6:55 AM:

Do you think who might make a great president? Edwards...

Coonsey wrote on January 1, 2008 4:40 PM:

I just saw Edwards being interviewed by Wolf on CNN. Wolf asked what Edwards would do when he first takes office.

He said, he'd get the military together and make plans to get combat troops out in a year and he'd get Congress to work on Univ Health Care.

Wolf then asked, what about your Corporate fight? What would you do to solve those problems?

Edwards, changed the subject. He GAVE NO SOLUTIONS to stopping Corporate Greed....HIS big campaign issue?

Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

kenshin wrote on January 1, 2008 10:29 PM:

Late Late Update: I should have clarified that these numbers don't change the fact that Edwards' fundraising disadvantage is very real -- but they are worth sharing as a possible indicator of Edwards' momentum.

ugh. please note:

candidates typically borrow against the matched funds until they come in. (he's matched for $7 million) so he's not at any disadvantage--besides, by the time that comes around (march), he should have plenty of money--the momentum will be there.

unless i suppose romney wants to liquidate his net worth and spend all $350 or $250 million on the election, whatever he's worth.

IT'S AN ELECTION, NOT AN AUCTION!

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)