Money Matters
Maybe it shouldn’t matter as much as it does, but money is one of the most important elements in a presidential campaign. Campaign contributions are both a useful tool for expanding a candidate’s message and a useful indicator of support.
For the month of March, these were the amounts that the three remaining candidates were able to raise:
This outcome is especially exciting for the Democratic candidate, whomever he ends up being because even with Democratic voters split between two legitimate candidates, they are each able to raise huge amounts of money. In the general election, the nominee will receive some money from those who supported his opponent in the primary.
This outcome is especially embarrassing for McCain, who devoted most of March to fundraising. McCain doesn’t have a primary contest to fight anymore, and he doesn’t really have to engage the Democrats since they are so tied up with each other. So McCain’s campaign thought they would try a little fundraising to pad the war chest for the general election, but that seems to have been somewhat of a failure. Although this was McCain’s best fundraising month ever, and he has no opponent within his own party to compete for donations, he still came in with about a quarter of the total amount raised by the two Democrats. Evidently, McCain is not a very good fundraiser. Or perhaps he is still having trouble gathering support from among the generous donating members of the party establishment.
Now, there are also rumors that McCain is preparing to accept public financing in the general election. A few days ago, McCain’s campaign returned $3 million in donations, a move that makes it appear that he is planning on accepting public financing (and the accompanying restrictions). It is extremely unlikely that his Democratic opponent will be bound by the same restrictions. This could be a very interesting race if McCain ends up publicly-financed and his opponent does not. That would probably mean that conservative would-be donors would funnel even more money into 527s and air their own “issue ads.”
Right now, the RCP head to head polls have had McCain-Obama and McCain Hillary pretty close for some time. However, I think McCain’s inability to excite the party and rally his own voters is going to be the difference maker.
On paper, this election is very close. Realistically, however, I think McCain has a lot of ground to make up. The only thing that could keep McCain in the race is Hillary making a stink of thing for the Democratic party in the coming months. She has the potential to swing a significant number of independent voters away from Obama. Yet, I’m not sure that will even be enough.
Keep one thing in mind though: while McCain might not be raising much, he’s also not having to spend hardly a dime right now.
Actually he is having to spend a relatively significant amount of money creating a national campaign infrastructure. It nice to not have to spend alot on ads on broadcast television (though he is advertising on national cable), but money will continue to be a problem.
Even if we assume that McCain is saving every penny that he raises right now, he is still in deep trouble for the general election. Obama could probably raise more in September and October than McCain will be able to from now until the election.
jkkuwitzky, how do you think it will play out if McCain decides to accept public financing? Will he? Will that make Obama look bad for going back on his promise to do the same? Will McCain stand a chance with such a financial disadvantage?
I’m not sure if McCain will actually accept public financing. I wouldn’t if I was him. The positives he would get from Obama not doing what he said he would seem unlikely to be enough to counterbalance Obama’s financial advantage. I think there is no doubt that much of the heavily lifting for the McCain campaign will come from IEs and the RNC. McCain will have to win the free media battle to have any chance.
Why else would he be returning millions of dollars in donations? If there were a scandal, I think it would have broken by now. Is there any other reason other than preparation to accept public financing?
“McCain’s inability to excite the party”
the press disn’t covering the firestorm that’s brewing in the RP.
This year’s convention is going to be some fight.
Maybe that’s why the Democrats are getting so much attention.
Wouldn’t want to give attention to a real peace candidate now would we?
Ron Paul is still a candidate.
He is still raising money and gaining support. (And he is not in debt)
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/
“The fiscal year 2008 budget, passed in the House of Representative last week, is a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy. It shows that Congress remains oblivious to the economic troubles facing the nation, and that political expediency trumps all common sense in Washington. To the extent that proponents and supporters of these unsustainable budget increases continue to win reelection, it also shows that many Americans unfortunately continue to believe government can provide them with a free lunch.
To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. When I first came to Congress in 1976, the federal government spent only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in thirty years, and tripled just since 1990.”
“My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support smaller government, don’t introduce budgets that increase spending over the previous year. Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25%? We could cut spending by two-thirds and still have a federal government as large as it was in 1990.” `Ron Paul
Q4 FEC Reports:
Ron Paul Receives More Military Donations Than All Other Republicans Combined
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/211/q4-fec-reports-ron-paul-receives-more-military-donations-than-all-other-republicans-combined/
Isn’t that interesting?
Also note that Democrats invest much more money in the Military Industrial Complex than Republicans…….
There could be an interesting developement here as well:
The Barr Factor
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12640
Who really supports McCain anyway? How many people are simply voting for him because he is “Republican”? Or because “he can win”? (Even though he is DOA)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24771
“In nuclear physics, every subatomic particle has an opposite. When they collide, they combine to produce another particle that resembles neither. McCain is the political antimatter that collides with conservatism and produces “liberal republicanism.” If John McCain is the Republican nominee, conservatism will be where we were in 1965: having to feed the conservative phoenix rising out of the ashes.”
have you guys played this at all? what do you think?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/02/politics/uwire/main3991161.shtml
Other than the interesting methods by which he has raised money, Ron Paul is irrelevant. Move on.
David, yes it seems as though McCain is preparing to accept public money. The conventional wisdom among Republican operatives I talk to is that it would be foolish to do so, and I agree.
Thanx for your opinion. But I wholeheartedly disagree that he is irrelevant.
Come up with a real argument and I will debate the matter.
Asserting that a fringe politician is relevant and should he discussed puts the onus on you to make that case. Aside from his ability to raise money, what makes him worth discussing? His showing in the GOP primaries was pathetic. He was an amusement onstage during their debates, nothing more. Voicing odd opinions and the occasional truism does not make the man worthy of notice. If his ideas had any chance of altering the political debate, why wasn’t he able to perform any better? It wasn’t for lack of money. If he ran as a third party candidate and polled any higher that 5 percent then he would be relevant. If you want to discuss libertarian ideas, you ought to find a better spokesman.
“But I wholeheartedly disagree that he is irrelevant.”
Although Ronnie has NO CHANCE in the general election, he might turn out to be more relevant than people think.
Polling has shown that many Obama supporters would not vote for HRC if she gets the nod, and likewise for HRC supporters if Obama gets the nod. Who knows, some of those votes may go to Paul.
Mc100moreyearsofwar has not solidified the GOP base, so he could possibly lose some of those votes to Republicans looking to cast a ballot.
It is possible that he could be relevant in that manner, isn’t it? I think he’s going to tap Jesse “The Body” Ventura as his VeeP……
I never understood the deep hatred so many people had for Ron Paul and his supporters until I visited the US during Christmas. I asked my friends what had happened to a mutual friend of ours. The last time I had seen him, this guy believed in every conspiracy theory under the sun, and occasionally smoked crystal meth. They said,
“Man. We can’t hang out with him much anymore.”
“Why not?”
“He’s gotten all into politics. He won’t shut up about it.”
“He’s into Ron Paul, isn’t he?”
“How did you know??!!!?!?”
And indeed, where crystal meth and endless conspiracy theories weren’t enough to merit social ostracism, Ron Paul was. I ran into him on New Years. He gave me a Ron Paul card (after I had tried to refuse it TWICE), and talked my ear off for 20 minutes with all sorts of inane BS about the federal reserve, etc. When he got started on “the Jews” I cut it short and avoided him the rest of the night.
So, yeah. Now I totally understand. I hate Ron Paul’s guts too.
I think he’s going to tap Jesse “The Body” Ventura as his VeeP……
it could be bob barr who asks Paul to veep…who knows?…..
a fringe politician?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-books.html
“what makes him worth discussing?”
where to start…..for me it was about money and gold, that’s how i learned about him….. he was the only one in the debates to stress how bad things are economically, now the candidates can’t talk enough about it.
it’d be nice if they took paul’s position of trying to educate people instead of planning how best to steal their money and micromanage the economy.
for some it is the issue of life, for others it was about war and intervention, and for many it is about the ‘supreme law of the land’, the Constitution, maybe it is solely about collectivism vs individualism, civil liberties, or small government, who knows….
@ jkkuwitzky
your questions will take a long time to answer…you sound like you want to learn more about his ideas….
“If you want to discuss libertarian ideas, you ought to find a better spokesman.”
lol….sure, i wouldn’t mind, but where did i mention libertarian ideas?
and why is ron paul a bad spokesmen?
besides…let us see what the September Reblublican National Convention brings.
is anybody here a delegate to their state conventions?
(i am not exactly sure how DNCs work, just the RNC)
i will be at the state convention, but i doubt i will make the National Convention.
No, I’m not really terribly interested in Ron Paul’s ideas. I know more than I need to know about them. His foreign policy ideas (though he occasionally is the only person willing to voice an uncomfortable truth or two) are dangerous and naive. The rest of his quackery is not really worth discussing. I have a bit of a libertarian streak, but Ron Paul is not nearly well versed enough to be taken seriously. There are plenty of libertarian thinkers I read regularly and respect. He is not one of them.
Also, how does linking to a list of books Paul has published mean he isn’t a fringe politician.?
lol. after posting i thought you might ask that question….
personally, i think the content of the books is what is important.
the content is not fringe by any stretch of the imagination.
but then again…why should i have to explain why he isn’t a fringe candidate…what is your reasoning for claiming that he is?
and besides….what does it matter anyway? its the ideas and platform that will make a difference. he has been a leader. that’s what america needs right now.
Just wondering what the stats are on winners of elections vs $ they raised?
Anyone have those stats? I think you will find that $ doesn’t always = a win.
I HATE all the $ spent on campaigns. It is ludicrous. Not only that, I HATE that politicians take so much side money & make stupid MILLIONS while in office… and then they turn around and bash “the rich” and corporations (who are providing millions of jobs) for making $$? If we really wanted reform & quality candidates maybe we shouldn’t allow them to accept $ for ANYTHING while in office due tot he conflict of interest. Then we should raise the pay and attract quality people who the government can’t currently afford.
I don’t have a dog in the fight… I don’t like ANY of the three. On voting history and most of the policies… they are all the same.
Didn’t Sen. Obama promise to accept public financing for the general election? Now he is claiming that he is instigating a new kind of public financing (and politics) with all of his small donations, but the bulk of his money still comes from large donors or bundlers. That seems hopeful.
@ray
it’s crazy, i know. the amount of money spent is the price one pays for advertising. i guess romney really thought he was the guy. his polling pretty much stayed flat at 10% and he spent about 60 million
rudy giuliani spent at least the much i think and he got one delegate.
(so much for the media-anointed top tier candidates!)
!!there are FOUR candidates people!!
i would think that common sense would tell people to go with the candidate who doesn’t spend all his money. spends it frugally, doesn’t take government handouts, junkets, or money from lobbyists, and gives money back to the treasury. gets awarded for being a taxpayers best friend. was right about iraq in 1990, 1998, 2001, and still wants to bring troops home. voted against the patriot act twice!, military commissions act, will restore habeus corpus, get rid of extraordinary rendition, put the executive in check instead of abusing power, and actually follow the consitution. someone who wants to have commodity money, and to get rid of the IRS and allow people to keep more of the fruits of their own labor.
i don’t know.. i must be crazy to support a guy like that/
No, there are not four candidates. McCain has reached the threshold necessary to secure the GOP nomination. Since Ron Paul has not indicated that he is going to run as a third party candidate (Bob Barr seems to have moved to occupy that space), that means his presidential campaign is over. If he wants to make that third party run then he should. That would certainly make things interesting (though I doubt he would make much of a showing). But this is why people hate the Paultards. They just don’t know when to go away. That and their obnoxious habit of linking to or cutting and pasting inane political commentary.
Yes, I understand that chances are slim, a nomination is percievably unlikely, and its the probable outcome that McCain will indeed recieve the nomination.
(Oh my god! Did I just say that. Oh no, please forgive me Paul! Whatever have I done! I’m not worthy!)
*Give an example of an inane comment: “There are not four candidates.”
As far as the nominee is concerned, there are whole conventions that decide this. That’s why McCain is the “presumptive nominee”. How many hard delegates does he have? Not enough.
PS
Paul never took public money either.
If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination I will give you one million dollars.
You must be a politician, or a banker.
They are the only people who can make promises like that.
But seriously, if you do have that kind of money…I hope its not in the bank.
And if he wins the White House I’ll let you use my unicorn to fly to my beach house on the moon for the summer.
The main thing Obama has going for him is a clever internet scam, that generates millions in cash flow. This fact alone has been responsible for Obama to dramatically out spend Hillary Clinton, to win the nomination … and to out spend McCain, which might buy him the White House. And, who knows for sure where all that money is actually coming from? It’s a dark day in America, when someone with a thin resume can buy the Presidency of the United States of America.
It was a dark day indeed when that very thing happened eight years ago….
The whole experience vs. change debate is old and Obama won it convincingly. The American electorate is not satisfied with the status quo and they seem to be very drawn to the candidate who seems to represent a different direction. Can you really blame them for not wanting someone with a “thick” Washington-insider resume`?
As for the money thing, Obama’s fundraising is significantly different from Bush’s in that it comes from many more people and much fewer concentrated interests. Obama’s impressive fundraising machine is indicative of his widespread support.
“And, who knows for sure where all that money is actually coming from?”
I do, Lee. It’s coming from radical Muslims with ties to terrorists who seek to destroy this nation.
Dark days indeed, my friend, dark days….
lol.
barack may not have a thick resume yet, but he’s working on it. plus, one can tell a lot by the company one keeps.
“The American electorate is not satisfied with the status quo and they seem to be very drawn to the candidate who seems to represent a different direction.”
ah yes, “seems to represent”…and there’s the twist.