In the money

April 2, 2007

In some ways, measuring presidential candidates by their fundraising totals is just about the ultimate in political inside pool. The typical American doesn’t know or care how much money a campaign raises — but the numbers are carefully scrutinized by reporters, candidates, staffers, and major donors.

It’s not necessarily fair, and fundraising conditions can change, but candidates who fall behind in fundraising are perceived, usually accurately, as struggling overall. Candidates who fill their coffers well are perceived as credible and strong.

And the first real gauge of who’s doing well are first quarter reports (Q1), covering the first three months of 2007. The best Q1 any candidate has ever had was VP Al Gore in 1999, when he raised $8.9 million. So, how’d these candidates do? Put it this way — Gore’s record looks pretty small now.

Dems:

1. Clinton raised $26 million (which doesn’t include an addition $10 million transferred from her Senate campaign coffers)

2. Obama is rumored to have raised about $22 million, though for reasons that are unclear, his campaign has not yet announced Q1 totals.

3. Edwards raised $14 million, which is right in line with expectations.

Everyone else: Richardson did quite well raising $6 million, followed by Dodd with $4 million, and Biden with $3 million.

GOP:

1. Romney proved why he’s considered in the top tier by raising $23 million.

2. Giuliani raised $15 million — including a very impressive $10 million in just March.

3. McCain will probably be third, but still has not disclosed Q1 numbers.

Everyone else: Apparently, the rest of the Republican field’s fundraising was so weak, no media outlets are even reporting on their numbers.

A few random thoughts….

First, Clinton’s fundraising totals are very impressive, but they’re not so extraordinary that candidates are going to start dropping out. That was the question in political circles last week — whether Clinton’s Q1 number would literally lead someone like Biden to say, “Oh, never mind.” $26 million is fantastic, but it’s not race-ending fantastic.

Second, Obama’s campaign has learned a bit about drama. If he’d released his numbers yesterday, he’d be in the second paragraph, lost behind Clinton’s record-breaking total. By delaying a day, Obama will get his own headlines. (On a related note, Obama seems to have been the top candidate for number of actual donors.)

Third, candidates who plan a late-entry, like Gingrich and Thompson, are already at a real disadvantage. Newt is talking about waiting until fall. By then, Romney will have $70 million.

And fourth, at this stage in the process, the numbers are about expectations. National Journal’s Marc Ambinder said Obama and Richardson appear to have exceeded expectations; Clinton, Romney, Giuliani, and Edwards met expectations; and McCain, Dodd, and Biden fell short of expectations. Depending on what Obama and McCain actually raised, this sounds right to me.

Stay tuned.

So Republicans have a cult member* with $23 mil, a philandering cross-dresser with $10 mil, and a guy who just did an unsuccessful leap across credibility gap with unknown numbers.

Heh. Bring it on, dudes.

And if/when Al Gore decides to step into the ring, he would have more money than he would know what to do with, in average donations of less than $100. I would say he could raise whatever the entire rest of the field has within a few weeks.

Come on, Al. Your time is now.

* I think a lot of religions are cults, but even the Republicans think Mormonism is a cult.

  • The point has been made elsewhere that a big portion of Clinton’s loot is for the general election, that is a big portion of her donors are tapped out, having donated 4600 clams.

    They did not disclose the breakdown, but my guess is that Obama will have tied or exceeded them in moolah for the primary.

  • Hillary’s crew is trying to sell the idea also that 80% of her donations were $100 or less, which I find very hard to believe unless her big-pocketed friends donated about 2,300 separate times to make it look that way.

  • From a practical perspective, word is that Obama’s waiting to get all the checks from the 5000 kickoff events held on Saturday before announcing the total.

    The longer the silence goes on, though, the more I think the number just might beat Hillary. Might be just wishful thinking from an Obama supporter.

  • 80% of her donations were $100 or less, which I find very hard to believe – Edward Copeland

    Actually the math works out rather well.

    Two assumptions must first be made:

    1) The quoted number of donors ( 50,000 ) is relatively accurate.
    2) Those that donated more than $100 likely donated to both the primary and general election.

    50,000 donors X 80% = 40,000 donors at an average of $100 = $4,000,000

    This leaves $22,000,000 of the $26,000,000 from 10,000 donors

    $22,000,000 / 10,000 = $2,200 average donation

    That could reasonably be an average of $1,100 each for primary and general elections, more likely the split wouldn’t be 50% between primary and general, but you can see that the numbers would still work out.

    And if she doesn’t win the primary (or decides to accept public funding) then she has to return some or all of the general election donations to the donors (like a money back guarantee on your donation!)

  • Excuse my math, it just dawned on me that the claim was that 80% of the donations were $100 or less. That implies a maximum of $100 not an average of $100.

    Depending on the adjustments you see fit you may or may not find that the numbers still all work out, but using what I felt were reasonable estimates it still works out ok.

  • Still, nice work Danny,

    I’m going to suggest that Romney’s donors are going to feel awfully foolish if Fred D. Thompson does get it, considering it took him only one Sunday morning talk show appearance to get into double digits while their candidate is scoring 3%.

    I really think Al and Tipper deserve their fun, but I’d love to see him get in.

    Hillary is SOOOO not scaring anyone out of the race.

  • I’m surprised and disappointed that nobody in the comments seems at all pissed off that money is what counts. I remember how outraged I was back in ’99 when Bush was constantly touted as the front-runner based on nothing more than the fact that he had a name and a whole lot of money. This whole campaign finance system is rotten to its f*#cking core. Why aren’t you people outraged that our “democracy” has been sold off?

    • Comments are closed.