Act Blue has become the preferred grassroots fundraising platform, allowing donors to give as little as $5 and allowing fundraising with no overhead. Every dollar you donate through Act Blue goes right to the candidate or organization you want to support. With Act Blue ANYONE can fundraise easily and at no expense other than their time. I have used Act Blue to raise thousands of dollars for candidates and groups I supported. Since 2004, nearly $20 million have been raised for Democrats and progressive organizations through Act Blue.

Well, one thing interesting I see looking at the Act Blue front page is the fundraising going on from the grassroots for the Democratic candidates for President. Here are the top 5 presidential funds on Act Blue. I should note that many of them are linked to from multiple Act Blue pages.

1. John Edwards 7,717 $844,576.31

2. Bill Richardson Exploratory Fund 1,076 $284,891.57

3. Barack Obama 176 $16,885.56

4. Bill Richardson Draft Fund 117 $10,154.85

5. Al Gore Draft Fund 101 $2,585.87

Not at all surprising to me is the absense of Hillary from the top 5. She has ample support but not much from the grassroots and netroots. I think that is why so many of us hear little good about her yet she may yet be a frontrunner: we mostly are in touch with grassroots and netroots organizers and they, by and large, are not with Hillary. Her support comes from elsewhere: bigger donors, more mainstream Democratic interests, the big league fundraisers. Hillary is the most mainstream of the candidates, I guess. But some things do surprise me in this list. Looking at it, only two candidates are really ahead: Edwards and Richardson. These two candidates are by FAR outraising their opponents through this grassroots/netroots medium. Had you asked me to guess who was doing best I might have picked Gore and Obama, with Edwards maybe third. I didn't expect Richardson to be doing so well and this indicates I might be underestimating him. And Obama is underperforming where I expected him to be. Does he have less appeal among the grassroots/netroots than Edwards and Richardson? I think the Act Blue fundraising may be a good indication of this.

Now, grassroots/netroots do not alone win elections. But they can help a great deal when they are combined with union and/or mainstream Democratic Party groups. So if Edwards or Richardson are also getting some good union and/or mainstream support, this edge in the netroots fundraising could be significant. Keep in mind that I consider this not only a sign of online grassroots/netroots fundraising success but also a rough measure of online buzz and popularity, something that can help a candidate considerably. Possibly Howard Dean would NEVER have caught the public's attention without the online buzz his campaign got. Can Edwards and Richardson make effective use of this buzz?

I don't know how significant the Act Blue fundraising stats are for judging how a candidate is doing among the grassroots and netroots. But I think it might be a reasonable, rough measure. I think it says NOTHING about mainstream support, so it is only one piece of the puzzle. But I think Edwards and Richardson have potential to be frontrunners if they can combine this online edge with more traditional sources of support. And, unlike Dean or Kucinich, they DO have some good support in more mainstream circles. But can they pull enough of it from Hillary to make a difference?

Obama is getting the media attention, both good and bad. But that is such a double edged sword that I am not sure it will work in the end for him. I think it may be significant that he is not doing so well through Act Blue's fundraising platform. Perhaps more significant than the success of Edwards and Richardson or the absense of Hillary. It may mean that the media buzz doesn't penetrate to the grassroots and netroots and that support in those areas is weak. Again, this surprises me.

Of course another rallying source for Obama is the black community. The media has played up some suspicion from the black community, yet I suspect that in the end the black political pundits will be happy to get behind a black candidate that can appeal so well to the white majority. I will also note that the comments I posted earlier from my friend Chris Owens regarding Obama have been picked up by The Black Commentator. So perhaps they are reflective of a chunk of the progressive black vote.

My feeling, looking at mainstream, media, grassroots and netroots attention, is that currently we have four viable candidates: Hillary Clinton (the mainstream juggernaut), John Edwards (the pretty boy with some substance...which, you gotta admit, is what wins most often for Dems running for Pres), Barak Obama (who might be to politics what Jimi Hendrix was to music...a black with large scale appeal to whites), and Bill Richardson (boring, from a small state...but perhaps greatly underestimated by me!). No one else seems viable at this time. I think Gore and Clark, should they enter, would alter the dynamics considerably. But for now, those four seem like the real candidates.