Let's call a spade a spade and say there's little great news for any Republican candidate based on the 3rd Quarter fundraising results, especially given the huge numbers being put up by the Democratic field in comparison. Here's a summary of the pertinent GOP information going forward (using sources here, here, and here for recent numbers and this link for the handy NY Times tool that for now breaks down fundraising numbers thru the 2nd Quarter):
Rudy Giuliani - gets the blessing of good headlines for raising the most primary cash in the quarter, $10.5 million. He also leads in cash-on-hand with $16 million, though since over $4 million of that is general election money he has less than $12 million available for the primary. Furthermore, at the end of the 2nd Quarter he had almost $14.7 million in primary funds on hand so his campaign is spending money faster than it's being raised. Absent a checkbook like Mitt Romney that's not good, especially for a campaign trying to husband its funds for pricey contests in Florida and on February 5th.
Jim Geraghty also notes that Giuliani's camp didn't release their total number of donors. Bad sign. Through the end of the 2nd Quarter Giuliani was the most top-heavy fundraiser, with 61.5% of dollars contributed coming in the form of max checks. It seems clear Giuliani doesn't have the diversified national donor base one would expect of a national front runner, that's perhaps part of the reason his top finance staffer was recently dismissed.
Mitt Romney - ok numbers with about $10 million in primary-only funds raised in the quarter coupled with another $8.5 million from the candidate, leaving mediocre cash-on-hand of $9 million. The good news for him is that he appears to have the largest Republican donor base: over 100,000 contributors. With only 42.5% of his dollars coming from max donors through Q2 and with 23,000 new donors added this quarter he's got a base to keep tapping. Then of course there's his personal checkbook too, which is an obvious benefit on one hand but a PR challenge on the other. The question is how much opponents may seek to use that against him.
Fred Thompson - a lukewarm result, much like the first month of his actual campaign. $9.3 million raised is good compared to other candidates in the 3Q, but bad compared to their much larger respective hauls in their own first quarter-long reports this spring. His total of $12.7 since early June, with $7 million in the bank, is hardly the great wave of untapped conservative fervor that was predicted earlier this year. He does, however, boast 80,000 donors, heavy on the low-dollar variety that can be asked for more.
Ron Paul - perhaps the surprise news of the quarter with over $5 million raised from his Howard Dean-like collection of Internet enthusiasts, and likewise over $5 million cash-on-hand. The question remains: how will he spend that money? He's not registering even near the leaders in any national or early state poll and it's tough to see a true market in the Republican primary for the full spectrum of his beliefs. But $5 million is $5 million and his comparative success at the bank just stuck a fork in Mike Huckabee.
John McCain - expectations were so low that $6 million raised in Q3 is considered a good thing. But along with that little over $3 million in primary cash-on-hand is $1.5 million in debt. Matching funds look like an increasing possibility, but that short-term infusion of extra cash (see discussion at the end of this post) also means a ton of strings attached, essentially committing the candidate to fighting with one-hand tied behind their back the rest of the way through the primaries and with two hands tied behind their back from when the nomination is settled until the party convention in August.
Mike Huckabee - he's done. $1 million raised and $600k cash-on-hand. Raising one-fifth of Ron Paul in the wake of his strong showing at the Ames Straw poll confirms Huckabee is great on TV and has some grassroots appeal on the stump but can't do what it takes to be a truly serious Presidential candidate. He doesn't even have the money make a real stand in Iowa.
In short, the fundraising numbers simply add to what Scott Rasmussen calls a "murkier" race rather than providing clarity. Based on the underwhelming overall numbers no candidate can spend freely in the primaries. Each will have to make strategic choices, with some playing more than others in various battlegrounds - all while trying to maximize free media. The candidate who combines the best message with the most effective use of available resources in the right states will end up the victor. Yet with all the variables involved in that process, it's impossible to predict a winner at this stage with any certainty at all.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 04, 2007 10:04 PM | Email ThisI'd just like to point out that Ron Paul meets that criteria.
He's the only canidate who could unite social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, while avoiding the Republican's albatross and Achiles heel: Iraq. A hawkish R candidate is doomed in 2008, just like the hawkish R's were doomed in 2006. It is only going to get worse for the neocon hawks.
(By the way, have I mentioned that neocons are really big government, utopian, Wilsonian liberals? They should be booted out of the party, and sent back to the Democrats where they belong. War is the health of the state, not of limited, Constitutional government.)
Will the R's get smart and nominate a true conservative like Ron Paul? Probably not. The result will be Hillary Clinton and socialized medicine.
Ron Paul is the Barry Goldwater of our times.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 4, 2007 10:31 PMRon Paul may not be the first choice of a lot of core GOP interest groups but he is at least acceptable to everyone except the warhawk wing - and most GOP faithful have had it up to their eybrows with that bunch.
Once people really begin to research Ron Paul, not just rely on what neocon mouthpieces like Sean Hannity say about him, Ron's telephone survey numbers will increase.
John Kerry was at 4% in Dec 2003 and then he won Iowa caucuses. Suddenly his polling numbers were at 53%.
Ron Paul isn't Goldwater, Ron Paul is Reagan, both idealogically, and tactically.
Later.
Posted by: Kevin Houston on October 4, 2007 10:54 PMBut /wow/ do we not see eye-to-eye on monetary policy.
Posted by: brent on October 4, 2007 11:42 PM1. Don't expect Huckabee to drop out quite yet. I'm not comfortable declaring any conservative a loser in this race until I absolutely have to.
2. Giuliani has a big problem, with social conservatives threatening to go 'minor party' if he gets the nod.
3. If you take into account the $15 million Romney loaned his campaign, then $9 million in the bank means they're really $6 million in the hole.
4. Ron Paul must have more supporters than we hear about. With an average gift of less than $50, that's a lot of donors.
5. Fred Thompson has skipped three debates so far, and avoided answering the tough questions. He seems to have a unique strategy that sidesteps the traditional indicators.
Posted by: Kyle Brotherton on October 4, 2007 11:58 PMHere in Olympia I've counted several Ron Paul for President signs. None for the other candidates.
Here's hoping he's in it for the long-haul. He brings a fresh perspective sorely lacking in today's politics, particularly among supposed small government Republicans.
Posted by: Donovan on October 5, 2007 12:12 AMI voted for ya dude, back in 2006. I'm with you on the 2008 election: I'm going to vote for Ron Paul. "Republican" is just a convenient label for Ron Paul - he's a Libertarian if there ever was one!
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on October 5, 2007 04:36 AMEric, my thought on the Thompson numbers was that he only had one month of campaigning to get his 'official' numbers after declaring. On the other hand, he should have had a lot of pent-up demand to feed his campaign troughs. I don't know what to make of him.
Posted by: swatter on October 5, 2007 06:53 AMThanks.
I don't think Huckabee will drop out either, he just doesn't have anything more than a prayer at this point.
Also, fair point about Romney's overall finances in a sense. But it all clears the bank the same way and he's essentially using his personal contributions to buy positive name ID parity in earlier states since he started the campaign running as an unknown against two (then three) national figures. Even at that he still has to prove it on the ground like everyone else.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 5, 2007 06:59 AMAs for Dobson and his crew, let them reap what they sow. If they want to give Clinton her third party candidate so she could win with 42% of the vote like Bubba did, then Dobson can get what he wants..another 40 million dead babies and 30 more years of abortion on demand. Rudy has said he would appoint strict constructionist judges, that's all a President can do.
Posted by: Doug on October 5, 2007 07:23 AMYah, because Barry Goldwater clearly didn't believe in using American power abroad. :rolls eyes:
Posted by: cliff on October 5, 2007 08:29 AMUntil the party realizes it needs to act like Republicans and NOT Democrats, they won't get any money from the Republican base. ANd if they are trying to court the Democrat base for money, good luck with that.
Posted by: pbj on October 5, 2007 08:56 AMAnd you say that as if it's a good thing.
Posted by: jimg on October 5, 2007 09:39 AMH. Clinton needs a ton of it to buy off the media. Did you notice the "coup" she pulled recently where suddenly everyone proclaimed her Queen of the Democrats. The "New York Times" practically has a banner hanging from their fifth floor windows saying "Hillary '08".
Republicans have pretty much made their choices and it only remains to get the voting over and see.
"(Ron Paul's) not registering even near the leaders in any national or early state poll"
Now look at the latest Gallup poll:
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28702
I'd say that Paul at 4% and Romney at 7% is extremely close, actually a statistical tie within the MOE.
That said, national polls are meaningless anyway. Romney does not need to be high in the polls now: if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, which seems quite likely, he will jump way up in the polls in other places. Paul, on the other hand, has no such prospects on the horizon.
Posted by: pudge on October 5, 2007 12:15 PMactually, the Rats are the party of the elitiest rich....the people that want to take from the working class and the middle class to give to the poor and immigrants...and the teachers of course....it doens't bother them because they don't pay as high a rate of taxes as I do proportionately....
Posted by: lee on October 5, 2007 01:40 PMHas everyone else noticed all the huge signs throughout Seattle and the Eastside? I see people on highway overpasses all the time too. People are handing out pamphlets at events like the seahwaks and husky games. All of this is by volunteers coordinating things on their own without help from the campaign. This from what I hear is happening all across the nation by thousands of volunteers. Add up the time and money spent and I am sure you have another 5 million. Other campaigns pay good money for support like that!
Travis Pahl
Posted by: Travis Pahl on October 8, 2007 09:18 PM