McCain Doesn't Come Close to Keeping Up with Dems' Fundraising

The New York Times:

Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton both had a record-breaking month of fundraising in February, bringing in more than $80 million combined, but with Mr. Obama again raising significantly more than his opponent.

Mr. Obama's campaign did not release an official estimate of its February fundraising on Thursday. But several major donors estimated it is about $50 million based on their calculations and knowledge of tallies during the month, when on many days the campaign took in as much as $2 million.

Compare that with this embarrassing showing from John McCain:

Likely Republican presidential nominee John McCain raised a little over $12 million in February, two campaign sources tell CNN's John King.

For the vast majority of this month -- and certainly since Super Tuesday on February 5 -- John McCain has been the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, presumably opening up the fundraising floodgates from both the party establishment and the base. Yet McCain was only able to pull in about a third of what Hillary Clinton brought in for the month and perhaps less than a quarter of Barack Obama's haul?

In other years, a $12 million February wouldn't be a disappointment. Indeed, John Kerry brought in roughly $8.5 million in February 2004 and that was not viewed as underwhelming (unless when seen in light of the $44 million he raised in March and the $30 million plus he raised in each of the remaining months leading up to the convention that year). But this isn't other years -- it's a year in which two Democrats are both breaking fundraising records, one of whom is just destroying them.

Maybe McCain will be able to turn things around in March as Kerry was able to do. Of course, that would presume that he figures out some technicality to open up a loophole in the campaign finance laws he helped champion so that he can weasel out of his legal duty to follow the spending caps he agreed to when opting into and deriving benefits from participation in the public financing program for the primaries. Yet even leaving aside legal questions about McCain's ability to raise and spend dollars over the coming months, I see little evidence that the GOP base or even establishment are truly coalescing around McCain or that they will any time soon. As such, I think it's much more likely than not that McCain will continue to trail his Democratic opponents in fundraising -- and badly -- for quite some time to come.



Display:


Re: McCain Doesn't Come Close to Keeping Up (none / 0)

Is it any wonder he's demanding Obama tie both hands behind his back?

And the fool left a wide open opportunity for Obama to argue he cannot trust McCain to keep his word on public funding, too!


Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.
by Walt Starr on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:45:52 PM EST

Re: McCain Doesn't Come Close to Keeping Up (1.00 / 0)

Don't you remember that BHO promised to take public financing? He can raise all the money he wants, but he'll have to give it back. That is, unless he wants to break another promise he made to the American people and continue to practice the politics as usual.

This guy is a fraud and McCain will smoke him in a 46 state sweep.


by joe1119 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:11:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain Doesn't Come Close to Keeping Up (none / 0)

Except he didn't take public financing, unlike your BFF John McCain who is actually stuck in the primary with public financing, despite the fact that he is raising and spending money beyond the cap. And also, you can raise money and spend up until the convention...you don't have to give it back until that time, and by that point, most of the legwork and damage would have already been done to McCain.


by Sean Siberio on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:55:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Money (none / 0)

And the fundraising armrace on our democracy continues. Sorry, on the one hand, I am glad we are out raising them, but on the other hand, there is the long term.


by bruh21 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:49:03 PM EST

Re: Money (none / 0)

The long term what?

Lets look at reality: advertising costs money, strategists cost money, ground games cost money. The issue should not be how much we raise or how much we spend. It should be how it is raised and how open the records are.

If we were to really cut the money out of politics it would lead to less informed voters, less effective campaigning and less overall interest in the process.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:01:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Money (none / 0)

That's bs. The issue should be how much money it costs. There are several reasons this is true.

Here are some just off top my head:

a) In a Democratic year, it's great and wonderful that we out raised them, but what happens when it's not one.

b) It continues to ignore the need for public financing.

c) It encourages the networks to not perform under their obligations as entities that use the public aire waves own by us. That they continue to charge for ads like this and increasingly higher amounts is a little like having your cake, eatting it too and steal the cake of everyone else.

d) It distorts who are the viable candidates because it becomes less about leadership qualities, and more, as we have seen, about the ability to have mass Oprah like or name recognition appeal.

I can go on as I've thought about this, and I disagree with the writers of this site on this issue. Indeed, that they are silent on it, tells me a lot since what I am writing now off top my head they  must know.


by bruh21 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:12:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Money (none / 0)

I agree, and insomuch that I am happy that Democrats are raising more money, it bothers me that we have to waste, essentially, half a billion dollars every four years just to get anything done. One thing I would like to see, after the hilarity of watching Romney pour millions down the drain, is for a Millionaire's Amendment ala Senate races to be added to the Presidential race. I'd also like to see the public financing program reformed so that its actually useful.


by Sean Siberio on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:40:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Money (none / 0)

You raise another element- namely the cost is so high that I have to ask myself-- where would this money be going if half a billion were not going into just running a single presidential season? What Democratic efforts are hurt by this armsrace?


by bruh21 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:58:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Money (none / 0)

It doesn't ignore the need for public financing; it questions it. Downthread someone asks about where the money would be going if we didn't blow it on a Presidential election and I feel that this is an incredibly valid question-

My counter to this is how do we effectively run campaigns without spending so much money? Specifically in regards to a 50 state strategy- my biggest problem with public financing is that it requires a spending limit. Without a massive overhaul of the whole election system rather than just the financing aspect of it there is no way to get your message out to the number of people necessary across the whole spectrum without spending massive amounts of cash.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:04:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Money (none / 0)

And by the way, I am sure the S Ct would love you, and how have accepted their false definition of free speech and democratic (little "d" principles). Democracies aren't about who has the most money or else we should start calling them plutocracies. I don't see how one can argue for change that will help the middle class, and turn around a support a system that is the very definition of hurting the middle class because it lessens their vote and their power. By it's very nature this sytem as it is set up can not produce good results. It can only over the long term as the money armsrace continues produce bad results. Hence, it's not enough to have raised what you raised in 2004, you got to raise more money in one month than in the the entire 2004 season. These things aren't theories- we are watching them play out in front of us. If you want an analogy think of the private sector and its dependency on quarterly returns. THis political system now favors short term say anything to get money politics.


by bruh21 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:18:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Money (none / 0)

I don't disagree with your premise I just don't see how public financing (the way it is currently presented) offers an effective solution. Rather it gives us a whole new set of problems.

A change to the system needs to be better rather than just being a change.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:07:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Money (none / 0)

I don't see it as change for change sake. It's a trade off of what are the values we all here have versus the things we lose by choosing to play into rules that ultimately taint the values we hold. There aren't any easy answers, but the one that's not a good one at all is where we keep on the pathway we are on. We will have to agree to dissagree.


by bruh21 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:03:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain Doesn't Come Close to Keeping Up with D (none / 0)

down his fuckin' throat every day...
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/01/mcca in-iraq-stroll/
"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:03:28 PM EST

Why does he need to keep up? (2.00 / 1)

Why in the world would McCain need to keep up with Hillary and Barack right now? That's silly. While the Dems are competing with each other and need gobs of cash for TV ads, McCain doesn't. Once he's the official nominee, he'll have all the money he needs for the GE.


by Nobama on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:10:44 PM EST

Re: Why does he need to keep up? (none / 0)

Because the GE is only two months long. The primary season, as evidenced by setting the convention dates back even later, has basically been extended over the whole of the summer. Acknowledging that, he will have to make campaign stops, advertisements, and everything else to rally support in time for the fall. As evidenced by his fund raising woes, if they DO keep up (and theres no guarantee of that) he won't be exactly great shape into the very compact GE period.

Its also important to note that you CAN start donating for the general election right now. For a man whose presumably the nominee, it would make sense to start hitting the rubber chicken circuit to start raising the funds for the fall. But he hasn't even managed to do that. And the same is true across the board of all Republicans, who are generally facing steep donation curves this season.


by Sean Siberio on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why does he need to keep up? (none / 0)

Because the more he has in the bank now, the less he has to fly off to California, DC, or New York to do those embarrassing fundraising dinners.  It's not a good thing to have to raise money while campaigning.


by rfahey22 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:32:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How Can He Spend It? (none / 0)

     If he's already spent all he can before the convention, what can he do with this money?


by Ron Thompson on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:15:56 PM EST

Re: McCain Doesn't Come Close to Keeping Up with D (none / 0)

If Obama can get 1 million plus individual donors for the primary, how many do you think he can get for the general?


John McCain: Four More Years of Failure.
by dannybauder on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:18:22 PM EST

Re: McCain Doesn't Come Close to Keeping Up with D (none / 0)

You do worry that all this fundraising success by O-man and Hillary is going to suck oxygen out of the Senate/House races.  This fundraising arms race is ok as long as it does not deny money for the Congressional races, without which transformational change will not come.


by Bob H on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:24:06 PM EST

I guess I don't (none / 0)

Between Obama and Clinton, they have more than 1.25 million donors, the vast majority of whom are nowhere near tapped out.

What's more, even as Obama and Clinton are raising buttloads of money, the Democratic congressional, senatorial and national committees are also badly outraising their counterparts (well, except for the DNC/RNC, but everything else more than makes up for it).


by jonweasel on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:49:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain Doesn't Come Close to Keeping Up with D (none / 0)

Down McCain's throat every day...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2sAnc2XuMcY&a mp;feature=related

of course this was in the aftermath of Katrina..
unpublished and lying transcripts have W saying...
"Ya know I have been told I snorted "Hurricane" jello shots at this time to Katrina and the Waves "Walking on Sunshine" while in NOLA.


"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:35:51 PM EST

Re: McCain Doesn't Come Close to Keeping Up with D (none / 0)

Speaking of money..can you all tell me  the difference between McCain and this?
http://www.chevron.com/stories/#/anthems /

Is it where MyDD depends on this money to keep you afloat?

As we delve into the rabbit hole.
`Is the sustenance of MyDD dependent on ExxonMobile

Yeah..I know Kos etc.. some do the same thing.
but many do not.

Without this would you sink?
atrios and digby FDL and so many others continue..

Please do not post anything about how McCain is funded. Will we make up for ExxonMobile? If you say "NO" maybe..maybe not.
Has buzzflash and others disappeared without this?
Ya all and others don't have to see my post here anymore...
...
Fuck McCain and ExxonMobile...
over and out...


"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:04:31 PM EST

McCain Does Come Close to Keeping Up with Dems (none / 0)

Repubs will outspend Dems in 527 money, which is what really hurts, especially since BHO has given them so much fodder to play with.

Comparing their $ numbers is a waste of time.


by joe1119 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:17:43 PM EST

My goodness... (none / 0)

...do you honestly think Clinton would be spared the GOP's 527 slime machine?

I'd absolutely love it if this were true.  Unfortunately, I doubt the GOP would be so accommodating :)


by jonweasel on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:46:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To be contrarian... (none / 0)

I think most of the money flowing to Obama and Clinton now are intended by the donors because we're still contesting the primary. So I'm not surprised that McCain is lagging a little. His donors probably don't feel like he needs it right now. (Of course, he does, because it's a long way from now until the GOP convention.)

By pre-2008 standards, $12 million isn't all that bad. That'd work out to $144 over a year, which used to be a lot.

As someone upstream noted, now that the Democrats will have raised and spent nearly $400 million in just the competitive part of the primary, and will need a lot more for the run to the convention, and then even more for the general election (assuming Obama drops out of public financing)--how much is left for House and Senate campaigns?

Are we more tapped out than we should be?


by OrangeFur on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:19:45 PM EST

Re: To be contrarian... (none / 0)

Except McCain could be raising general election funds right now. Until we see the FEC paperwork we have no idea how much this 12 million is for the primary or the GE. More to the point, as I point out in a post above, the late conventions compact the GE and makes primary spending more important. A man with 12 million a month against a candidate with 3 times or more of that, over the summer, is going to be ill-prepared on the ground to roll for the GE.

All this also ignores that even during the height of the Republican primary the money was not flowing in anywhere near the amount Democrats were raising, and McCain was even the loser then fund raising wise. McCain should be hitting the rubber chicken circuit, and I think to a certain extent he is, but its still not coalescing for him. I should also point out its not for any other Republican either; all of their committees, with the exception of the RNC, are low on money, as are individual candidates.

There is the specter of 527's, but after the Supreme Court wack against them, there may be an attempt, but I wouldn't be surprised if the DNC wasn't ready to launch litigation the moment one started up.


by Sean Siberio on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:10:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't worry about McCain (none / 0)

Religious smear? Check. Middle name pointed out? Check? Random troll? Definitely.


by Sean Siberio on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:12:21 PM EST

Ha, ha (none / 0)

Something all of us -- Obama and Clinton supporters alike -- can laugh about :)

Poor, poor McCain.


by jonweasel on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:44:53 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.