TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
05.06.2008
Money Matters

Somewhat conflicting interpretations of the general-election money chase are offered today by Talking Points Memo and Politico. TPM:

In an indication that Dems perhaps can't count on John McCain to be all that underfunded for the general election, McCain was able to raise $22 million in May, his best month yet, and up from $18.5 million raised in April....[W]hile Obama is still quite likely to out-raise McCain over the whole cycle, at this point it's by no means a safe bet that it'll be a truly overwhelming advantage.

Late Update: The latest numbers show that McCain has $31.5 million total cash on hand. In short, money will probably not be a huge problem for him this Fall.

Politico

A review of campaign finance data offers not one ounce of good news and barely any hope for the McCain campaign’s ability to compete with Obama’s fundraising prowess.

To make matters worse, Obama’s campaign, which raised $272 million through April for the primary, now is reaching out to Clinton’s fundraisers, who raised another $200 million through April, in an effort to unite forces and bury the historically deep-pocketed Republicans.

Take a look at some of the numbers:

• If each of Obama’s donors gave him a modest $250, he’d have $375 million to spend during the two-month general election sprint. That’s $186 million a month, $47 million a week.

• During the same September to Nov. 4 period, McCain will have about $85 million to spend since he has decided to take taxpayer money to help finance his campaign activities.

Politico's piece was apparently written before McCain's May numbers were released, but I don't think they much alter the situation. $31 million cash on hand sounds pretty impressive, but this is after a month in which McCain devoted a lot of time to fundraising and didn't have to spend much money. Moreover, these things are entirely relative, and while $31 million might be a fine sum under normal circumstances, Obama's historic numbers during the primary suggest cirumstances may be anything but "normal" this time out.

--Christopher Orr

Posted: Thursday, June 05, 2008 3:45 PM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ackyri said:

Is it practical to assume $250 from each of Obama's donors, though? So much of his support comes from people giving very small contributions. Generally these are coming from students, the poor, and other people who would certainly give more if they could afford to. That might be too rosy a projection.

June 5, 2008 4:10 PM

liberal reformer said:

Barack Obama looks to have a significant advantage in the money-raising department, Christopher. I think that Politico probably will be closer to the truth. The Republicans are dispirited and the McCain campaign is not exactly setting people on fire.

June 5, 2008 4:11 PM

AlanSP said:

I would dispute the notion that these things are *entirely* relative.  There are diminishing returns on the money spent on a race, at least with respect to advertising (where the majority of it gets spent).  So, for example, in a statewide race, a candidate with $6 million has a much bigger advantage over a candidate with a $3 million than a candidate with $60 million has over one with $30 million.  Blanketing a state like Pennsylvania with 2000 points of advertising costs around around $2-3 million a week.  At that point, though, you're pretty much saturated.  Spending another $2-3 million a week to bump it up to 4000 points a week won't really help (1000 is generally considered heavy).

Things change a bit in a national campaign, where having more money lets you expand the number of states where you're advertising, rather than just the amount you spend in each one.  So Obama can reach the point where spending more money in OH, PA, etc. won't help, and have money left over to compete in states that are more of a long shot like ND or NC.  Still, if McCain has enough money of his own, Obama won't have that huge of an advantage.

June 5, 2008 4:44 PM

jacobt1 said:

Just wait few more days when Clinton supporters start donating McCain

June 5, 2008 5:23 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Good news and bad news.

Good news: McCain's internet operations are a joke.

Bad news: McCain's people understand this and will no doubt move to correct it in coming months. Once he gets some competent Web 2.0 designers and developers in-house, he shouldn't have any trouble at all raising many millions over the web this summer and fall.

June 5, 2008 6:25 PM

ratnerstar said:

I don't buy it, tep.  McCain's internet issues have absolutely nothing to do with a lack of competent developers.  His website isn't brilliant, but it's perfectly acceptable.  "Web 2.0"izing it, whatever that means, isn't going to build him a community or suddenly lead to an influx of new donors.  If you could do that, every upstart social network/information exchange/user participatory website with some gradients and wet floor effect would be raking in money.

McCain's internet problem isn't technical, it's personal.  But it would be cool to see some tag clouds for him, I guess.

June 5, 2008 8:57 PM

areteone said:

Since when has McCain actually agreed to be bound by spending limits?  He's saying he repaid the loan and he's free from any restrictions.

June 5, 2008 11:28 PM

AlanSP said:

areteone,

McCain has said he plans to take public financing for the general election, not the primary (the primary system was what all the controversy was about).  After the Republican Convention, he'll get $85 million for the last 2 months of the campaign.  As an aside, I'm not generally a fan of public financing for elections, but if we're going to have it, we need a system that doesn't force one party to spread the same amount of money over 3 months instead of 2.  Just set a date instead of tying it to the "official" nominations at the conventions.

June 5, 2008 11:57 PM