Obama’s Haul & What’s Changed
by Patrick Ruffini :: July 1st, 2007 11:14 pmObama’s $31 million haul for the primary places him in a class of his own. The media will hone in on the $32-27M horserace figure. But $7 million of Hillary’s total was aggressively upselling her core givers on the general, something no other campaign has done. The fact that only she can do that says something important about the core strength of her campaign and its ability to ultimately trample Obama. But even so, she got shellacked $31 million to $20 million in primary money. And this was a good quarter for Hillary, one which saw her consolidate her lead and benefit from Obama’s rookie mistakes. If this was a good quarter, I’d hate to see what a bad one looks like.
Hillary is now basically in the same league as Romney and Rudy when it comes to money, maybe a bit stronger. Edwards just fell off the face of the planet this month, shading Richardson. Both the Hillary and Edwards number show us that the Dem money edge is not a Democrat thing. It is an Obama thing.
When it comes to raising money, enthusiasm now beats connections and even overall support every time. That’s something high-dollar focused Republican campaigns (and Hillary, who runs her campaigns like Bush) need to be thinking long and hard about. Romney and Hillary’s connections could only get them to roughly $20 million. Obama’s enthusiasm got him to $32 million. At some point, we have to begin asking whether this phenomenon of Internet candidates outraising the frontrunners is more the rule, rather than the exception. And whether or not that cheapens the impact of a win in the money primary.
I think this will wind up exposing how little money actually matters at the end of the day. Fact is, it never mattered as much as the “reformers” said it did, but we never really got to live in a universe where fundraising and poll position didn’t correlate. Now we do.
Primary loser Howard Dean and probable loser Barack Obama both cleaned up in the money game. They showed it’s easier than ever to cobble together an army of true believers on the Internet that not only equals but defeats the bundlers (Obama’s approach is more of a hybrid, though). But at the end of the day, Dean didn’t win, and Obama is plummeting in the polls — something campaign manager David Plouffe was perhaps overeager to spin today.
Surging campaigns like Obama’s usually stumble because they don’t know what to do with the extra money, so they throw it around with reckless abandon. Will they move more of it into GOTV or Internet organizing? Use it pound rubble on the airwaves in IA/NH, or conserve it for 2/5? Hint: Plouffe is a partner in media consultant David Axelrod’s firm, not a field or new media guy, so expect to see lots of ads.
(Moreover, a 3:2 advantage against a team as skilled as the Clintons isn’t likely to be significant. It’s not like Hillary needs to run ads to introduce herself. Obama does need to get his name ID up, and do lots of hand-holding with older, more traditional Dem primary voters.)
To the extent you have to worry about money, worry about being closer to Barack Obama than Mike Gravel. Failing that, know how to operate on a shoestring. (Max budget for dark horses: $5 million in 2007.) The money differences between the Republican candidates are insignificant compared to the glaring COH advantage Clinton and Obama are opening up on us, one that if duplicated in 2008 could have serious repercussions on our ability to keep the White House.
For Republicans, that means rethinking assumptions. For us the formative event was Q2 ‘99, when George W. Bush vacuumed up $30 million, most of it in $1,000 checks two weeks before the deadline. But the days of Ranger & Pioneer dominance are gone, and they’re never coming back. The establishment can blow away everything in its path only when it is utterly united. We were afraid Hillary was going to do this to us, but even she, as an ex-sorta-co-President of the United States, couldn’t do it. To the extent we think about small donors, it’s still all about Mr. Viguerie’s lists. Our thinking desperately needs a reboot.
For Democrats, the formative event was Howard Dean’s bat, but more appropriately, John Kerry raising $180 million in five months to nearly equal the Bush-Cheney machine. That wasn’t about connections — it was about enthusiasm, and getting a bunch of like-minded people — maybe 3% of Democratic voters — to chip in $50 and $100 at a time. Especially with the bundlers split, campaigns that don’t tap into this excited core of support start to look pathetic at the end of fundraising quarters.
Maybe we need to think less about how to get that extra Ranger or Pioneer on board and more about reconnecting with our core audience. The future is 250,000 donors, not $250,000 bundlers.
Tagged: barack obama 
fundraising hillary clinton
Comments (2) 
Trackbacks (2) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Seems to me people in the MSM underestimate Ron Paul’s growing tens of thousands of self-organizing, self-coordinating, technologically savvy, and very highly motivated supporters. They find each other on meetup.com and other online sites. These groups get (and expect) virtually no money or management from the Paul campaign and cost it nothing, yet are highly creative and effective because they are so empowered and passionate in their support.
I don’t know how many millions these groups are worth, but I bet Rudy would give his $18 mil for them.
As you say Patrick, enthusiasm counts.
A few things here:
1) Ron Paul is doing all of this with a virtual blackout from the Old Media. Many voters and contributors only want to donate to someone they think will win. With conservative websites out there excoriating Dr. Paul because he stood up to Bush on Iraq, and the mainstream media ignoring Dr. Paul, I’m amazed he was able to raise as much as he did. How much more face time has Obama had vs. Paul?
2) Ron Paul can be frugal with the money he does raise. Dr. Paul himself said the campaign has risen spontaneously out of the internet because people like his message and consistent voting record. He doesn’t need to hire high priced consultants to spin an inconsistent record (ahem, Romney, Giuliani). He’s voted with the Constitution every step of the way. He has no need to spin anything.
3) True conservatives would do well to listen to and support Dr. Paul’s message. He was way ahead of the curve on the Iraq war, and correctly characterized it as illegal and unconstitutional. Currently, 70% of Americans disapprove of the war and view it as a Vietnam like quagmire. Look around and see how many Republicans up for re-election are distancing themselves from the war and the Bush Administration (Domenici, Lugar, Voinevich). A Republican can’t beat someone like Obama unless he has a strong anti-war message. Ron Paul is the only Republican who delivers that message… and we’d have the added bonus of someone with some respect for the Constitution, who’s pro-family, pro-states’ rights, pro-taxpayer, and anti-IRS. Sounds like someone who could be even *better* than our conservative icon Ronald Reagan.
4) Once Dr. Paul gains traction, the mainstream media will have to cover him. People out there obviously like his message, so more coverage will turn into more support and more donations. He’ll run away with this if he ever gets any support from mainstream outlets… and it’s looking like his media schedule is already starting to fill up.
The above article says we need to think more about reconnecting with our core audience. Who better to do that than Ron Paul? It’s a simple message: non-interventionist foreign policy, and a federal government that respects the Constitution and operates within its Constitutional constraints. Support Ron Paul, and the core is happy, likely, even happier than under Reagan. Support any of the other Republicans, then you can say hello to President Hillary or Obama. It looks to me like our choice ultimately is Ron Paul or the winner of the Democrats. I think I know where our core audience stands on that.
[…] Obama’s Haul […]
[…] So while his cash-on-hand is greater than John McCain’s (something that has everything to do with McCain), Ron Paul’s populist, Internet-driven campaign isn’t powerful enough to earn him his own fundraising tier, as I’d fully expected given the new order of things. […]