Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
YOUR WORLD IN CHARTS: "OBAMA'S RICH, BIATCH!" EDITION.
I don't actually think Barack Obama's remarkable advantage in small-donor fundraising is all that inexplicable. As a Dean Campaign alumni, I'm contractually required to believe that raising tens of millions from small donors is an internet-based phenomenon. And, largely, I do believe that! The techniques pioneered by MoveOn, the Dean Campaign, and others of their ilk are enormously effective at getting engaged citizens to donate small amounts of money. And if your e-mail list is big enough, that translates into huge total sums. So, when comparing Clinton and Obama's success, it's worth looking at their web traffic -- if Obama's got more folks coming by the web site, he's going to have more folks to ply those techniques on. The following graph is from Alexa, which, though inexact, is about the best traffic comparison tool we have:
Obama's site gets way more traffic than Clinton's (and both get way more traffic than McCain's -- he's that little mustard colored line near the base of the graph). And with way more web traffic comes a way larger e-mail list, and with a way larger e-mail list comes more donors who eventually succumb to a fundraising appeal and donate $20, and when they do that, it becomes far more likely that they'll do it again, as now they're invested in the campaign. Add in that a pretty high percentage of Obama's voters are fervent backers, rather than soft supporters, and you have a recipe for some impressive fundraising.
COMMENTS (18)
Unless there's more than one of you, you're a Dean campaign alumnus, not alumni.
Carry on.
Posted by: nolo | February 7, 2008 11:42 AM
Where's Ron Paul on that graph?
Posted by: Sam L | February 7, 2008 11:48 AM
Does the traffic explain the donations or does something else cause the both? Answer the question 'why does Obama's site get so much more traffic?' and you will probably have the reason for the volume of small donations.
Posted by: Jocie Fong | February 7, 2008 11:52 AM
McCain's website hits went DOWN for Super Tuesday?
Posted by: Alex | February 7, 2008 12:09 PM
Obama took in $5.8 million on Feb 6, impressive, but Clinton also took in $4 million. Obama's beating her by 45% yes, but this isn't an order of magnitude difference.
Of course, in her speech on Feb 5, Hillary mentioned her website several times (which other blogs have described as a plea for moneys), while Obama has yet to do that.
Posted by: Tony V | February 7, 2008 12:10 PM
Tony V, Obama has a cultivated donor base that can do this every week.
Clinton had to basically go public and say 'I'm broke, please help me' to get 4M. It is not likely to be an act that can be regularly repeated.
They describe this as a plea for money because the Clinton campaign is desperate for money. With their burn rate, 4 Million won't get them beyond Virginia.
Posted by: soullite | February 7, 2008 12:15 PM
Tony V,
Obama actually took in $6.1 million on Feb. 6, beating Ron Paul's single day record. He's above $7.5 million so far since Feb. 5.
Posted by: Fox | February 7, 2008 12:19 PM
Can we now stop pretending that Obama is some kind of massive underdog in this campaign?
What's troublesome about all of this: a massive amount of money is being donated, in February, that will not be going to defeat the GOP.
Posted by: Jason C. | February 7, 2008 12:29 PM
I find it interesting that the third place Democratic site in hits was neck and neck with johnmccain.com up through the Democratic SC primary.
Not only is there a big pool of money to be tapped by candidates who can work the Mess Media hype, but there is also a pool of money to be tapped by an insurgent campaign.
If in the end, Edwards decided that he could in all likelihood do anything other than bring the Democratic party to a brokered convention and he was not willing to do that ... it remains as a live option.
Posted by: BruceMcF | February 7, 2008 12:50 PM
It's all about website beauty. Obama's campaign site is beautiful.
Posted by: Mike | February 7, 2008 1:34 PM
Obama's website was hosting GOTV calling operations for his supporters, similar to the moveon.org model. I assume that would be included in the traffic numbers?
I know several people, myself included, who were using his site for that purpose in the days leading up to Feb 5.
Posted by: Jean | February 7, 2008 2:20 PM
Obama's is definitely the better designed site. Not only is it more beautiful, it's more easily navigated, it allows people to move into active roles, and it has much, much more interesting and compelling content.
Posted by: Sue | February 7, 2008 3:18 PM
One of the great things about getting massive numbers of people who donate money is that it provides a ready-made list of likely activists for GOTV operations on election day.
Posted by: TW Andrews | February 7, 2008 7:02 PM
"Long Tail" at work. A million people giving $10 each makes more money than 10,000 people giving $99.
Posted by: Tel | February 8, 2008 11:01 AM
Where's Ron Paul on that graph?
Posted by: Sam L | February 7, 2008 11:48 AM
Ron who?
Posted by: Jimmy Mac | February 8, 2008 5:16 PM
Nolo: did you miss the NYT article yesterday on the millions of bacteria who inhabit each of us? You are not alone... we're all 'alumni'.
Posted by: Buckeye Hillbilly | May 24, 2008 1:20 PM
Obama has a cultivated donor base that can do this every week. Clinton had to basically go public and say 'I'm broke, please help me' to get 4M. It is not likely to be an act that can be regularly repeated. They describe this as a plea for money because the Clinton campaign is desperate for money.
Posted by: club penguin | May 18, 2009 4:02 AM
Obama's is definitely the better designed site. Not only is it more beautiful, it's more easily navigated, it allows people to move into active roles, and it has much, much more interesting and compelling content.
Posted by: nanovor online | October 28, 2009 9:34 AM