Obviously, this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, because when Obama reports having topped one million individual donors, the bulk of his givers are so-called "small donors" because the amounts they have donated are under $200 and therefore do not have to be itemized individually when reported to the FEC.

When you take into account that donation averages are probably well below $200 and most people probably give only once to a campaign, this statement nearly invalidates your big, bolded point.

I think Obama's million donors is impressive and truly a step forward for online politics, but let's not go overboard here.

I disagree. I don't think it's at all true that "most people probably give only once to a campaign." Involvement tends to spur more involvement, assuming the candidate continues to inspire support among his base (and continues to make smart, timely appeals for donations alongside other forms of volunteer engagement, like making phone calls). In 2004, many of Howard Dean's small donors become "middies" because they kept reaching into their pockets to give again and again. (One estimate of the donations made to Dean by people who attended his Meetups was they ended up giving more than $300 on average--and the more Meetups they attended, the more likely they were to give.) We've seen the same thing happen this cycle with Ron Paul's donors, many of whom have described choosing to give again and again, in tandem with their grass-roots "money bomb" efforts. Obama's million donor pool is proving to be a very deep well of support for him to tap, and when the dust settles, it's quite likely that the impact of his under $200 contributors may be a much more sizable fraction of his overall fundraising than is typical.

Micah,
I think this is just more proof of the cult nature of Obama followers. His empty speeches won't go far in the general election. The latest Rasmussen poll shows people trust McCain over Obama when it comes to the economy, national security and Iraq. The selling of his political moniker are reminiscent of how the Nazi Party promoted the swastika. Just look at the Google ads which appear on this website. Do you really think money can buy this election or are supporters giving money to the Church of Obama????

While his most engaged and loyal supporters (Meetup attendees, to use an '04 example) will give multiple times, I believe that is a small percentage as compared to the drive-by donors who want to feel like they've helped. They give what they can give but that's it.

It would be interesting if we could look at his FEC report as it stands right now, because right now, we're both just speculating about the profile of his donors.

If you're going to compare Obama to 2004 to make the point that his donor numbers are huge, you really need to do it on an apples to apples basis. Comparing aggregated donors to non-aggregated donors is really misleading.

The Bush campaign ended the campaign with 1.2 million total donors in 2004. So the precedent for having more than 1 million total donors has already been set. Granted, Obama has done it much earlier in the cycle and as a candidate in a contested primary.

At the time the Bush campaign announced its one millionth donor, Kerry had just announced his one millionth donation so the media equated the two. Bush, however, had reached a million DONORS in the summer.

As I said, Obama's accomplishment is still impressive. He's not a sitting president, so it's likely much harder to reach a million donors in the environment he's in. However, purely as a number, it has been done before, so keep this in perspective.

Of course if I remember correctly (and I may be wrong), the majority of Bush's donors came through Jim Rowley's direct mail program not online.

The difft fundraising emphasis between the two campaigns is one reason for different timing of 1,000,000 donor mark and more importantly a big difference in net dollars. BC04 was mailing the phone book and netting money...that said they would probably much rather have the COF of Obama's online operation...

While, like most rules in politics, this is not always true, small donors also tend to be volunteers. Big donors drop the cash at the big events for a photo with the prez or a night in the Lincoln bedroom.

But small donors not only tend to give repeatedly, but give hours.

PACs and corporations cover their bases and give to multiple candidates. Small donors don't.

So, once a candidate has their money, he or she also has their vote, and is much more likely to have their time.

If a campaign makes it easy to write a letter, make a phone call, or talk to your neighbors--a small donor is much more apt to do so.

We know we can't fork over the big bucks. But we have time and connections and are willing to use them. That's how many of us got involved with the Dean campaign, and later in congressional races. We saw we had something to give that was just as valuable as money. We gave both. But it was the volunteer time that really hooked us in and kept us there. The Obama campaign has made good use of both and I commend them for it. They'll need both if he becomes the nominee. And they'll have them.

cfinnie,

I do not mean to pound you in the head, but I think Obama is over-rated and those who follow him are in for a bit of disappointment. Much of his support is the result of anti-Clinton sentiments. Some are probably giving money so they do not have to waste time at an event or to get rid of nuisance calls from the Obama movement.

When Mrs Obama referred to people's use of her husband's name as a "fear bomb", I think it largely backfired and the damage would have been worse had it received more coverage. If his name is such a problem, why didn't he change it? Americans do not name their children Adolph or Castro and people change names for far more trivial reasons, but Obama kept the name of a dictator, Hussein.

It is NOT right-wing conservatives asking these questions as they have already dismissed Obama. It is the political LEFT asking these questions. Obama's time in the spot light won't last. Money is not going to buy this election.