McCain Closes the Money Gap
June 21st, 2008 at 05:05pm Mark Noonan
For the first time in the campaign, Republican John McCain in May raised about the same amount of money, $22 million, as Democrat Barack Obama.
McCain also closed the gap in the amount of cash the two parties’ presumptive presidential nominees have in the bank at their respective disposals as they enter the first phase of the general election.
McCain reported having about $32 million in cash for primary-related expenses at the end of May.
Obama reported having $43 million in hand at the start of June — but about $10 million of that is dedicated to the general election.
Obama’s fundraising in May marked a sharp dropoff after months of record-breaking donations. Even in difficult times, such as the key loss he suffered in Pennsylvania in April, Obama brought in a steady flow of cash that usually topped $30 million a month.
The surprising cash parity between McCain and Obama means the candidates begin the general campaign more evenly matched than many experts expected, although things could change swiftly given Obama’s ability to raise money through small online contributions.
According to Obama’s campaign, the drop in donations was caused in part by a shift in focus from bringing in big money to homing in on the delegates needed to clinch his party’s nomination.
At the same time, he was forced to burn through his cash reserve in the final round of primaries, which were hotly contested by a significantly underfunded Hillary Rodham Clinton.
That last bit is courtesy of Operation Chaos - and the report goes on to note that in May, Obama spent $27 million to McCain’s $12 million and that, in and of itself, justified the Chaos effort. The conventional wisdom is that Obama will just gear right back up and raise whatever amount he wants or needs. And, so far, Obama has been a fundraising phenomena…but I do wonder just how much more he can garner? If the well of Democratic money really bottomless, or will the half billion spent on the primaries have drained the collective bank account? Time will tell - but we can at least be sure that Obama won’t just be able to spend his way into the White House; McCain will be able to put up a fight which will force Obama to climb out of his shell and actually confront the voters, and that is the place where we can crush him. Obama as a version of the “un-named Democrat” is unbeatable…Obama as a further left version of McGovern is very, very beatable.
It will also be interesting to see which campaign paradigm works - Obama’s is a top-down, massively funded drive, while McCain’s is a decentralised lean and mean campaign. I’m beginning to believe that McCain might really be on to something here, and that Obama will just be an over-funded dinosaur trying to act like the latest sports car.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans
27 Comments
1. Vicodin-N-Cocoa | June 21st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Why is this surprising? John McCain is a very legitmate candidate with good sources of funding. Why shouldn’t he be able to match Obama in raisning money?
I think that no matter how much he raises he’s up against it because of the economy and because the public still hasn’t seen them side by side. I think Obama cuts a more impressive figure because he speaks better, has a broader range of knowledge and there is that problem of McCain’s physical appearance and high squeaky voice.
That said, the war-hero theme could well trump the change theme. I think the Democrats ran horrible campaigns against Bush in the last two, completely underestimating his political skill and overestimating their guy. Gore was bad. Kerry was pathetic. This time, the Democrats have no excuse. They’ve got the candidate, the team, the money and everything lined up. If they lose to McCain, it sure will put things in stark relief I’ll tell you that.
I’ll also congratulate you. I hope you’d do the same for me.
2. SEW | June 21st, 2008 at 6:56 pm
And red Ferraris don’t do well when there is a bump in the road. Look for the oil pan to suffer serious damage at the first bump.
“Gore was bad. Kerry was pathetic.” Vicodin
I’ll congratulate that, even though you were mild in that assessment. However, Obama is worse than either. A pure socialist trying to pursue Marxism. Pretending to move slightly center for the votes only.
3. neocon | June 21st, 2008 at 8:02 pm
“I think Obama cuts a more impressive figure because he speaks better, has a broader range of knowledge…….” - Vicodin
I think you’re wrong there. I think you’re to use to hearing Obama speak with a teleprompter and/or notes. Left on his own, and on the fly, he stumbles.
Hence the dodging of the Town Hall venues.
4. Vicodin-N-Cocoa | June 21st, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Neo:
Respect me here for going a little extra to try to see it you guys’ way. See, I see a lot of Obama’s flaws, but I don’t want him to be a saint merely president. Nobody here seems willing to admit that John McCain has any flaws at all. You see him like some kind of Ideal Man as conceived by Plato and scupted by Canova.
Let’s really dice this up properly. Neither McCain nor Obama are great in the TV form debate. I think Huckabee, Paul and Romney (even Brownback a couple of times) always got the best of McCain. I think Kucinich and Clinton and then Clinton herself beat Obama in the debates every time.
I think that the typical TV debate format suits McCain way better than it does Obama. McCain can do what he did against Huckabee, Paul and Romney in the Reagan Library debate against three smarter men. McCain just stuck to three simple points and repeated them. Obama could get lost in vagueness trying t “outthink” McCain on the stage and McCain could come off as way more resoloute.
So, of course, Obama wants the Town Hall style TV debates. This is Axelrod playing Tom Sawyer and beggng to whitewash the fence. Eventually, think Obama will agree to two or more Town Hall debates because Obama does respond better to impromptu questions and does better in a dialogue than McCain does because Obama is pretty schoarly and McCain is kind of thick.
You’re right about my being used to hearing Obama with teleprompter and notes. I’ve only caught glimpses of him in open-form discussions and it was good enough. I’ve seen McCain to and it’s not that he’s bad, it’s that he’s kind of weird with all the hugging and the overly personal involvement with the audience even to kind of an inappropriate level.
Add in the difference in physical appearance and in vocal style and I just think that Obama has the edge in the Town Hall, McCain in the standard.
5. neocon | June 21st, 2008 at 10:07 pm
As long as McCain keeps his clothes on, his involvement with the audience doesn’t bother me. But I agree, McCain has flaws, big ones.
So it will be interesting. I was always hoping Gingrich would run. He’s usually the smartest man in the room.
6. Vicodin-N-Cocoa | June 21st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Well, Neo, I’ll acknowledge that Gingrich is bright and that he’s worldly enough that I think he’d be a far better president that McCain would.
I think Gingrich is a very good political thinker and isn’t afraid to see the other side. Or experiment with new ideas. On issues like taxes, he and I aren’t far apart. I think the Republican Party could use a guy like him who thinks for himself.
The problem is that he made a huge power grab which worked for four years and then really, really didn’t work, so he’s stuck as an “elder statesman.”
7. Kurt | June 21st, 2008 at 10:56 pm
This is good news. Operation Chaos must have made Obama spend most of his money.
8. The New Conservative | June 22nd, 2008 at 4:51 am
If McCain can keep up fundraising with Obama then this will be an even bigger blowout than I thought. Obama will be broke by October because he always spends more than he takes in, typical liberal.
http://thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/
9. OpChaosUK | June 22nd, 2008 at 5:29 am
V-IC, I was going to comment on your comment about Earbama’s knowledge, but I see neocon beat me to it. I will, however, comment on your assertion that “Nobody here seems willing to admit that John McCain has any flaws at all.”
Apparently you are new to this blog, or you haven’t been paying attention. You see, many of us here, along with many prominent conservatives, have many issues with McCain. In my case, he’s the lesser of two evils. He was basically picked by the drive-by media, and won the nomination through the left’s version of Operation Chaos. Conservatives didn’t nominate McCain; moderates and crossover Donkaroaches did. These same crossover Donks will not vote for him in the general election. If he doesn’t unite the GOP base, he doesn’t have a chance.
And, while I think Mr. Earbama would be bad for the U.S., I won’t let his victory affect my happiness or my life. Yes, he’s a socialist, but the damage he can do will be limited.
Sooo, do you think he’s gonna have the Clinton’s full support, or are they gonna subtley sabotage him so’s Hitlery can run in ‘12?
10. Magnum Serpentine | June 22nd, 2008 at 8:46 am
Very interesting indeed,
Latest polls from CNN
Obama 57%
McBush 35%*
Looks like raising cash is not helping team McBush.
Next
*george’s third term.
11. neocon | June 22nd, 2008 at 9:03 am
Mags,
This is even more telling:
It was Reuters reporting on a Newsweek poll. As the reader should suspect, the poll questioned more Democrats than Republicans: 231 Republicans to 324 Democrats, plus 307 independents.
12. neocon | June 22nd, 2008 at 9:44 am
Or possibly this:
The London Times notes Barack Obama’s current lead in the polls, but says the Democrats shouldn’t get complacent. Of the last five Presidential elections, only once has the candidate who was leading the polls in June won the popular vote.
13. SEW | June 22nd, 2008 at 11:37 am
If the numbers were reversed and 324 Republicans and 231 Democrats were polled, that would result in 58% to 42%, or a 16% McCain lead.
CNN and Newsweek.
Have any of you Kool Aid drinkers noted that CO2 has risen significantly over the past 10 years while the temperature has fallen slightly? CO2 must be causing global cooling also. Drink up.
14. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | June 22nd, 2008 at 11:44 am
12. neocon | June 22nd, 2008 at 9:44 am
The one out of those five that became president is George W Bush.
15. Gabrielle Deroscheres | June 22nd, 2008 at 11:45 am
12. neocon | June 22nd, 2008 at 9:44 am
Quick question neocon: Do you know who Jim Cramer is?
16. neocon | June 22nd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Gabrielle,
Of course, why?
17. Hey Now | June 22nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“I didn’t really love America until I was deprived of her company.” John McCain
18. Mark Noonan | June 22nd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Vicodin,
Of course we’ll congratulate and, also, you can bet that if McCain knows he lost late on election night, he’ll get out there and graciously concede the race…he won’t sit there in a funk and send his VP nominee out to spew some lunatic leftist nonsense about the result being unclear and hinting at non-existent fraud…you see, we on the right care more about America than about our own political prospects. We want very much to win and we know for certain that Obama would be a complete disaster as President, but if Obama gets the votes necessary to secure 270 electoral votes, then he’s President. Period. End of story. No, we’re honorable men and women and we’re not going to invent a lot of cock-and-bull stories if, say, Obama secures his votes by even the narrowest of margins.
19. Mark Noonan | June 22nd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Hey now,
Magnificent statement by McCain about how he learned to appreciate it not by the success of his spouse, but be being deprived of it altogether as he was tortured for years by the very same communist North Vietnamese the American left supported…
20. neocon | June 22nd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
HeyNow,
I agree with Mark. That is an incredible statement that defines the promise that America offers.
Thank you for sharing that with us.
peace, neocon
21. eddie johnson | June 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Obamas Broken Promise
In the recent past, on video, Obama promised that he backed the public funding of presidential campaigns to keep the evil of big money out of the elections process. He promised to work with his Republican opponent to mutually commit to that if nominated. That promise has been broken. Now that he sees he can raise 3x his opponents money he has publicly stated that he will renege on that promise.
I guess his idea of change is to go backwards in time over 30 years to the bad old days of fund raising. Shame on you Obama.
22. Magnum Serpentine | June 22nd, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Ah yes Republic controlled Reuters
Next
23. Mark Noonan | June 22nd, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Magnum,
Ok, I’ll bite - Reuters is controlled by the GOP? How so?
24. OpChaosUK | June 23rd, 2008 at 5:52 am
Ah yes Republic controlled Reuters
This statement alone proves it once and for all, Maggot Syrup–you’re a spoof!
Nobody, even on the left, could be as stupid to claim that Reuters is controlled by Republicans.
Next…
25. neocon | June 23rd, 2008 at 9:01 am
Mark.
Mags always resorts to tainting the messenger when he is out of talking points. According to Mags, Rasmussen and Reuters are in the GOP tank, but MSNBC is completely objective.
Nuff said?
26. Some Assembly Required | June 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 am
MS, How exactly is Reuters controlled by republicans? It’s one of the fairest news sources I’ve come across. I also like the BBC. In any event, both are much fairer than CNN. Which is leaps and bounds over Fox News but anyone with half a brain knew that anyway. Reuters is one news organization that has some shred of credibility left in tact over the past decade. IMO. If you have information of the contrary, please provide it.
27. Some Assembly Required | June 23rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
OT but in light of the discussion…
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2045060220080623
This is anything but republican propaganda. It’s very interesting to say the least. Evangelicals are stepping away from the republican party. These are people who are supposed to be McCain’s bread and butter. I highly doubt they’ll vote democrat, but not voting will be just as disastrous for McCain.