2008 Presidential Election thread part II - fundraising

[El Diablo]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/....ap/index.html

"• Romney raises $23 million though he trails in polls
• GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani reports $15 million, John McCain $12.5 million
• Sen. Hillary Clinton posts $26 million, John Edwards raised $14 million
• Democrat Sen. Barack Obama to release fundraising figures on Wednesday"

Compare this to:

"The prior records for first-quarter fundraising were held by Republican Phil Gramm of Texas and Democrat Al Gore of Tennessee. Gramm raised $8.7 million in 1995, while Gore raised $8.9 million in 1999."

What are the impacts of this level of fundraising going to be? Are lesser-known candidates going to drop out far earlier? Will voter turnouts increase?

[MrMon]

Perhaps we should ask President Gramm and President Gore.

I heard one interesting analysis of this yesterday - all these numbers are spin. Until the detailed figures get released April 15, we don't know how much of this money is spendable in the primary vs. spendable in the general election. Apparently a lot of the candidates are collecting both now and bundling the two together in their initial reports, so it's quite possible some of those numbers are 50% of the reported amounts for the primary campaign. We also don't know how much of the money has been spent to collect the money. I recall past years where often times the top fundraiser had very little cash on hand because they spend so much just trying to raise more. Cash on hand and cash spendable in the primary season are the key numbers to look for, these initial numbers are meaningless without that data.

[NickMPK]

Edwards has said that of the $14 million, $13 million is spendable in the primary. So won't be the biggest stack in primary, but he will reasonably close.

[iron81]

On top of this, Obama is unofficially saying he raised more than 20 million.

[ QUOTE ]
What are the impacts of this level of fundraising going to be?

[/ QUOTE ]
The major news in these numbers is that Romney beat McCain and Giuliani. This will likely mean a couple points in the polls just from increased name recognition and people wanting to "back a winner" which will move him from a solid 3rd to a major contender.

Other than that, no surprise: the assumed top tier of Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Clinton, Obama and Edwards was confirmed. Bill Richardson did ok at $6 million, but he'll need to pick up the pace eventually.

[ QUOTE ]
Are lesser-known candidates going to drop out far earlier?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but not because of these numbers. Iowa governor Tom Vilsack has already dropped out. The whole primary campaign is being moved up, we will likely have 2 nominees by the middle of February where before it might stretch until late March. Other than Romney, these numbers aren't a surprise so they really shouldn't affect candidates plans. However, I can see candidates like Biden bowing to the inevitable and dropping out by the fall.

[ QUOTE ]
Will voter turnouts increase?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, the money will help drive turnout and purchase good Get Out The Vote campaigns. However, the major reason that turnout will be up in the primaries is that this is the most competitive primary season in quite a while. Neither party has a clear frontrunner and there is no incumbent President or Vice President.

[beta1607]

The two biggest impacts that fundraising has this early in the campaign is the "back the winner" mentality somebody mentioned and the ability to fully staff every aspect of your campaign operation with more talented people before your opponents can get off the ground. Fundraising allows you to hire great campaign staff and not just at the top levels, but the middle and junior people and if nothing else that keeps them from working for your opponent. Not a lot of people outside DC talk about it much but it makes a big difference if you're able to hire the best grassroots coordinators, communications professionals, opposition researchers and fundraisers. It completly alters how newspapers will cover your campaign and how major groups like unions or the Chambers of Commerce will interact with the candidate.

Imagine the edge of having 100 paid staffers on the ground in small, early states like New Hampshire or Iowa right now lining up supporters while your opponents only have 20.

[nyc999]

Hillary is going to put together one hell of staff - on top of the 26 mil, she's transferring another 10MM from her senate re-election campaign.

I think Richardson's 6 million will raise some eyebrows and I can see him ending up as a VP-nom, especially for Edwards.

[El Diablo]

All,

Obama announces $25M raised.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/...ing/index.html

[aitchie]

Don't you guys think that US politics needs a limit on the amount of money that can be raised and spent campaigning? Its' all about rich special interests, buying media coverage etc when it should be about ideas & policies. The result of this is you end up with a cabal of 2 establishment families running the country for potentially nearly 3 decades.

go obama!

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
All,

Obama announces $25M raised.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/...ing/index.html

[/ QUOTE ]

he had more online donors then Hillary had altogether, and Hillary's donors have already blown their wad - (given the full amount) whereas a lot of Obama's supporters haven't reached their max amount yet and can give more if the need arises.

Hillary has also been lumping her sums and will be dragging funds over from her Senate campaign -

and probably a good chunk of her change came from Bill's fundraising efforts -

I can see why she'd try to bully Democrats into not giving to anyone else - she's got real competition on her hands [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

rb

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you guys think that US politics needs a limit on the amount of money that can be raised and spent campaigning? Its' all about rich special interests, buying media coverage etc when it should be about ideas & policies. The result of this is you end up with a cabal of 2 establishment families running the country for potentially nearly 3 decades.

go obama!

[/ QUOTE ]

What "establishment families" are running in 2008? Romney is the only front-runner I can think of from an "establishment family", and Mormons are hardly "establishment". Clinton may have had a husband who was president, but he and she are hardly "establishment". Edwards has money, but he earned it the hard way, he stole it from other people, the sick and injured and those trying to do good. McCain comes from a military family, not a business or political one, and may be as close to the traditional "establishment" as you can come in this crowd. Gore isn't in yet, if ever, but he would probably qualify. Giuliani and Obama are ethnic, not exactly the "establishment" crowd.

Campaign finance reform is the biggest imposition on free speech this country has ever seen, yet because it's supposedly a reform, no one complains that their rights are being taken away.