That's pretty amazing, given the fact that they have raised humongo bucks already.
People increasingly look to money as a proxy for support, in no small part because it is a publicly reported figure. For some time now, Obama has exceeded Clinton in terms of getting small contributions from millions of supporters, where Clinton has relied on large contributions and "bundlers" who go out and raise money from individuals personally.
I cannot help but wonder if Clinton is finding some of her financial and political support evaporating as her political prospects become less certain. In addition, I wonder how much of this will become self-renforcing. If Clinton is seen as losing money, and thus losing support, will she actually start to lose support from that perception?
As the success of McCain and Huckabee relative to Romney shows, money is not nearly so deciding a factor as folks like to say it is. And indeed, as happened in New Hampshire, Clinton may benefit from a rebound effect if she is perceived as an underdog candidate.
Nor is it clear to me why Obama enjoys such a large advantage in online contributions. My initial reaction is to assume it is shaped by broadband access, particularly in the home. Certainly some segments of Clinton's base have lower broadband penetration in the home (Latinos, working class women), but so do some of Obamas (African Americans). I don't think it's a digital divide thing.
Could it be that the majority of Clinton's rank and file voters, the ones that have given her the edge in places like CA and NH, are undecided until so close to the vote that they do not contribute online?
I'd love to see some real analysis of this somewhere. It baffles me.