It won't be long before McCain claims that this money came from the bailout queens. And the media will see no irony in the fact that McCain "suspended" his campaign, or that most of the "pork barrel spending" added to the bill was done to coax Repubicans, or that so many of those queens' lobbyists are on McCain's campaign staff.

OT, but NBC is saying the Missouri rally from yesterday drew about 200,000 people, double yesterday's estimates.

You missed an important part of the story: the largest groups giving are students and retirees.

Regarding the grumbling you heard in Democratic circles, the BEST thing about Obama's campaign is that it finally remainders the Clinton War Machine's credibility. They were a bunch of know-it-alls who claimed to have found the magic formula for winning elections, except they always managed to leave out one key ingredient: you need to have Ross Perot take twenty million votes off the table for your Bubba to win!

Seriously, Carville, Begala -- all of them can drop dead. There's a new politics in town, it's a more honest and inclusive Democratic politics, and it doesn't subvert the will of the people for the narcissism at the head of the ticket. And I do mean head.

(Sorry.)

I don't remember (and much like McCain, am too stupid or lazy to use the google to find out) how much dinero Obama gave up by opting out of the "public" financing. I vaguely recall hearing numbers like $80M, which, if correct, would mean he's gotten close to double that total in just one of the (what I think were) three months affected. Of course, I'm uncertain of every element of what I just said.
Anyone know for sure?

I have decided to not give any more money to the campaign, but instead I am traveling to Ohio in a week to volunteer on the campaign at my own expense through election day.

If Obama's well-organized get-out-the-vote effort in Virginia is any indication Obama is spending the money very well.

The neighborhoods and airwaves in northern Virginia are saturated with Obama volunteers, flyers, ads. Not just campaign volunteers -- the SEIU was out in force, walking the streets. Didn't see one McCain canvasser. Long ads on TV, ones that actually offer content. Large local rallies for down-ticket Dem candidates.

Back at the office data entry was going very smoothly -- as soon as one terminal emptied the seat was filled. Dozens of volunteers on a beautiful Saturday afternoon, many stayed well into the evening.

Voter turnout is expected to be on a scale unseen in decades. Lots of absentee voting already, especially by teachers. There's an attitude of, "We aren't letting this one slip away. Not again. Our vote's going to count this time."

Still the polls show the race to be close. Makes me wonder what would be happening if the economy hadn't gone into meltdown.

HELL FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!

Ok, sorrry, I had to get that off my chest.

With the "voter caging" and electronic voting machines, don't count your chickens before they hatch.

The GOP used to have some good people, now all you see are the wingnuts. What happened? But maybe Obama can pull this election away from the GOP.

"Makes me wonder what would be happening if the economy hadn't gone into meltdown."
pj in jesusland on October 19, 2008

Makes me wonder if the average IQ is still 100, after years of destruction of public education and deliberate dumbing-down by our corporate masters and the mass media (but I repeat myself).

One degree of separation

Plouffe:

...it's what's beneath the numbers in terms of average Americans who have had enough, who want a change and who are really fueling this campaign.

Think about it: 3.1 million families investing their hard-earned. Radiating from each of those families a plethora of contacts: emails, texting, telephoning, everyday conversations. In short: A social force unseen in our lifetimes.

This is the reason why the negative campaign can't gain traction against Barack.
Less intuitively, it is also explains why the negative attack has become so vile and personal.
Even less intuitively, it also explains why the Republican party is being cleaved in half...

Thank you Sarah Palin!

I think most of the media commentary so far is missing the context. This is fundraising record is a direct response to McCain and Palin's campaign to "energize the Republican base" by insulting everyone else. This is why I finally opened up my checkbook last month, and I know I'm not the only one.

This is Karl Rove-style politics being engulfed in its own flames.

This is, by itself, public financing in the real sense of the words.

I vaguely recall some grumbling in Democratic circles a couple of months ago, with many wondering whether the Obama campaign's fundraising would be strong enough to justify opting out of the public financing system.

It seems relevant to raise the widespread presumption several months back, among people with doltish tendencies, that Clinton was a far more viable general election candidate than Obama, and HRC's comment to Richardson: "He can't win, Bill."

This is why I finally opened up my checkbook last month, and I know I'm not the only one.

You are certainly not the only only one. The vile and despicable behavior of the McCain campaign (and Palin!) have raised the stakes so very, very high. My first contribution was more in support of Obama then specifically against McCain. My contribution this month was wholly inspired (inspired?) by McCain. I truly believe that for the good of the country, and the world, McCain, and the Right, have to lose.

Not just lose, but be well and truly spanked. They need a giant time-out, so they can sit and reflect on what they have become. They need to spend 25 years in the wilderness.

People are voting with their pocketbooks, and it isn't for McSame/Snailin.

What is at stake is not the success of a relatively charismatic but conservative young politician from Illinois (or Hawaii).

What is at stake is rolling back a generation of conservative ascendance in American politics. Since 1976 the Republicans have lost only 3 presidential elections and have dominated the political agenda of the United States. They have done so by superior grassroots organisation and discipline, and vastly greater funding power.

2008 is only the beginning of a very long journey for the Democrats, back to the centre of American politics, a position they largely lost in th e1960s and 70s.

Therefore 2 questions:

1. It works for Obama, but will it work for the Democrats in future elections, when Obama is not running?

The basis of the organisation of the Democratic party is the unions and the black community-- each can run massive 'get out the vote' operations. Will this new construct survive a less charismatic candidate, operating in less fraught times?

The test of the Republican machine was its ability, since the 1970s, to steadily gain yardage again, and again, in elections from dog catcher to State Senator (redistricting!) to President-- delivering the election in 2000 for Bush (with a little cheating) and in 2004. By 2004 the fruits of their gains with, for example, practising Catholics, were manifest. Despite a devout Catholic candidate, the Democrats lost the Catholic vote. Republicans have taken former 'blue' heartlands like Missouri and West Virginia and made them durably 'red'. In addition, the Great Lakes states have been trending steadily more red since 1984.

Tied in to the evangelical machine, the Republican machine could yet deliver again in a year where the cards are not so stacked against the Republicans.

Can this new 'machine' live beyond its creators and in particular Mr. Uber Charisma-- Barack Obama?

2. on any money contest, the Republicans have more money. They are the party of corporations and affluent individuals.

So next time, the Republicans will raise far, far more money for the presidential race, and eschew public finance. Think Mit Romney, the next time.

If the Democrats are on the way to victory via superior fundraising, then they are choosing to fight future battles on the Republicans home ground.

This may be an unhappy precedent.

What is at stake is not the success of a relatively charismatic but conservative young politician from Illinois (or Hawaii).

What is at stake is rolling back a generation of conservative ascendance in American politics. Since 1976 the Republicans have lost only 3 presidential elections and have dominated the political agenda of the United States. They have done so by superior grassroots organisation and discipline, and vastly greater funding power.

2008 is only the beginning of a very long journey for the Democrats, back to the centre of American politics, a position they largely lost in th e1960s and 70s.

Therefore 2 questions:

1. It works for Obama, but will it work for the Democrats in future elections, when Obama is not running?

The basis of the organisation of the Democratic party is the unions and the black community-- each can run massive 'get out the vote' operations. Will this new construct survive a less charismatic candidate, operating in less fraught times?

The test of the Republican machine was its ability, since the 1970s, to steadily gain yardage again, and again, in elections from dog catcher to State Senator (redistricting!) to President-- delivering the election in 2000 for Bush (with a little cheating) and in 2004. By 2004 the fruits of their gains with, for example, practising Catholics, were manifest. Despite a devout Catholic candidate, the Democrats lost the Catholic vote. Republicans have taken former 'blue' heartlands like Missouri and West Virginia and made them durably 'red'. In addition, the Great Lakes states have been trending steadily more red since 1984.

Tied in to the evangelical machine, the Republican machine could yet deliver again in a year where the cards are not so stacked against the Republicans.

Can this new 'machine' live beyond its creators and in particular Mr. Uber Charisma-- Barack Obama?

2. on any money contest, the Republicans have more money. They are the party of corporations and affluent individuals.

So next time, the Republicans will raise far, far more money for the presidential race, and eschew public finance. Think Mit Romney, the next time.

If the Democrats are on the way to victory via superior fundraising, then they are choosing to fight future battles on the Republicans home ground.

This may be an unhappy precedent.

As much as I love to see the dems use the repubs strong suit (money) against them, I'm still a bit queasy about this. I would very much like to see a truncated election process with public funds... this election cycle only ups the ante and we can be damn sure that no one will go that route in the future.

Andrea Mitchell also stated that it is likely that Barack Obama just tied up ALL the advertising slots available, whether or not J.McCain could afford it. While this sounds amazing, I think I'll have to spend more time with some books, because non-stop adds from the same candidate are a scary thought. Not a concern troll, but just hoping it doesn't backfire.

@ Craigie

"they need to spend 25 years in the wilderness"

They need to spend 25 years in prison. If this had happened with Watergate, we wouldn't be where we are now. Shooter, W, Gonzales, Rumsfeld -- all of 'em. Prison. Hard time. Breaking rocks.

valuethinker: You are still making the common mistake of thinking this is about Obama. You're treating him like he's some necessary component of the operation. Obama himself keeps saying this isn't true. It's not about him, it is about fixing our country.

You're also making the mistake of thinking that this machine he's built from the ground up is all about fund-raising. It isn't. It is about connecting to the voters. *That* is the really important thing here: connecting to the voters and keeping them engaged. The GOP have been doing that for 30 years, so don't start saying that we can't.

This machine of Obama's can keep working just fine without him at the helm. It can be screwed up, but I see reason for optimism. Obama has already turned the operation over to others. Howard Dean, whose 50-state strategy worked quite well in 2006, is one of the leading people in this new democratic operation.

And seriously, how can you keep pushing the idea that the affluent big-money republicans are invincible when it comes to fund-raising? Are you even bothering to pay attention? This very article you're commenting on states quite clearly that Obama has broken fund-raising records by relying on small private donations rather than the old big money types. This idea of yours that big money trumps private citizens is now a dead horse. Stop beating it.

I think David Brooks said it best on the night Obama delivered his electrifying speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention: "This is like watching Tiger Woods play his first [major] tournament."

Shade Tail

I've seen it with Pierre Trudeau and with Tony Blair. The liberal party has a charismatic leader, and the electoral machinery is built around that.
When they go, so does the machinery.

You haven't convinced me that the Democrats have proven they have built a durable system.

As to fundraising, the Republicans will find new financial resources. Their supporters have more money after all. They will be ready for a fight, next time, and most definitely in 2012.

It would be a mistake to assume that the enthusiasm and organisation that accompanies Obama, will be translated to the Democratic nominee of 2012, and the Party in the intervening elections.

That has yet to be proven.

We are not yet on the dawn of a new New Deal coalition, any more than John Kennedy marked the beginning of a 'new coalition'.

Remember that, like John Kennedy, this is likely to be a disappointing Administration for liberals: the candidate himself has a record of political conservatism and dealing with the other side. The fiscal situation is highly constraining. The foreign policy situation is dire, and will force hard choices on any President. We haven't even begun to think about what happens if Obama strikes at Iran (or if Israel does as America's proxy).

The demographic and social forces which have changed America, to the advantage of the Republicans (such as the rise of the South, the migration of population, the formation of the exurbs etc.) are still out there.

What is true is that GWB has caused the rebirth of the Democratic Party. Whether that can be sustained is a question not yet answered.

On the money, remember their pockets have always been deeper. They find it easier to rouse 100,000 to give $1000 each, than the Democrats have roused 1 million to give $100. The 'Obama coalition' is not held together by an ideological belief in his platform (because it's unclear what it would be, other than a Clintonesque centrism) but by the charisma of the man, and a detestation for the other side.

Like many of you I've given to Obama each month -- sometimes money I don't actually have (ie., on a credit card) ==== it's that important. So these figures don't surprise me at all and I'm not sure the economic slowdown is having much of an impact.

I do wish though that the Obama-Biden campaign could it's sh** together on mailing out the gear they dangle as bait to get you to donate. The Biden pick was 6+ weeks ago and still no sign of the 'official' Obama-Biden '08 t-shirt supposedly being sent to $30+ donors! Another offer for house signs (which would have an impact here in NOVA) guaranteed to arrive by 10/17 -- still not here.

I'll still vote for Obama, still work for him each weekend and at some level I'd rather that people were working the phones or walking precincts on his behalf rather that stuffing envelopes full of gear BUT he's got a little bit to learn about KEEPING promises made to people. He needs his brilliant campaign to plug that leak, close that loop or whatever the right image is.

Truly impressive. I was worried that the financial crisis and economic worries that exploded in September might cut into Obama's campaign contributions. Clearly not! People realized that a small contribution to Obama goes a long way -- a true long term investment.

I hope the bonanza continues into October.

What impresses me is that people are still giving. It would be easy to have said "hey, he's rolling in dough, I don't need to bother," but people aren't saying that. To me, that says how desparate people want the R's out, AND Obama in.

But I still support reforms that take much of the money out of campaigning. Maybe this experience will actually advance that agenda.

I don't believe a lot of things either but cash grants are out there http://www.securegrantsnow.net/ can help you get one.

Adam had it right with his "Thank Sarah Palin". After her convention speech when I saw the repulsive combination of Reagan and Nixon in one candidate I couldn't wait to donate the max. As soon as I got back from vacation I did just that. The wicked witch from Wasila, dumb as a post and vicious as Nixon.