McCain Fundraising: A Call to Arms
by Patrick Ruffini :: April 8th, 2008 12:19 amAs much as I don’t want to sound unhelpful, it’s time for a little tough love. If anyone thinks McCain raising $15 million in March is good news — and crucially, just $4M of it from online and direct mail — then they’re probably part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
What stands out from the announcement is the sense that they’ve thrown in the towel when it comes to fundraising for John McCain 2008. Read between the lines, and it sure looks like they’re putting all their chips on RNC Victory, which can raise in $25,000 increments, and a helping hand from Team Romney. They’re also taking public money in the general, foreclosing any chance of the grassroots funding the campaign if Obama breaks his public funding promise.
The campaign is on track to meet its internal budget goal of about $57M through the start of the Republican convention and an additional $20M for a legal compliance fund.
McCain’s fundraising team has also been tasked with raising about $100m into the Republican National Committee’s Victory Fund, which will be spent in the fall. The campaign itself has stopped raising money for the general election and intends to accept the $85m from the federal government.
The campaign expects a fundraising boost in may from the efforts of ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney, who has pledged to raise at least $15m for McCain by encouraging his donors to contribute.
This suggests that they not only expect to lose the fundraising race, but intend to go down without a fight. How? By relying on the same weakened high-dollar model that fell short for every Republican candidate in the primary, and barely bothering with the untapped potential of the Internet that John McCain first discovered in 2000, and has enabled every candidate who has used it well to exceed expectations.
There is something noble about running an ascetic campaign. About winning with less. If anyone can do it, John McCain can. In fact, that’s how he did it in the primary, and the story of how he won with virtually nothing in the bank is nothing short of inspiring for campaign professionals. When all the mercenary $2,300 donors left the ship, his low-dollar base stuck with him, providing him with just enough of a cushion to bounce back.
No low-dollar donors, no McCain as the nominee.
The problem now is that with a national campaign, McCain needs many more donors of all stripes to pull it off. One can win a primary on fumes, but can one win a general election that way?
McCain needs both the fat cats and little guys behind him – but low-dollar is more elastic and scales better. Instead, the focus has all been on high-dollar. Thirty to forty percent of the candidate’s time is spent at high dollar events, rather than meeting voters. All the background quotes given to reporters suggest an elaborate event-driven fundraising strategy and a great deal of time, thought, and organization poured into an incrementalist and labor-intensive strategy of prying loose that next $2,300 check.
Why are we not talking about the urgency of minimizing the online gap with Obama at a similarly high level? Isn’t it one of the central strategic challenges facing the campaign and the party?
The good news is that all this attention to offline means that McCain is probably outraising Obama through events. But that doesn’t do much good when we’re getting killed 10-to-1 online and Obama doesn’t need to spend any time doing events.
I get that this is not apples to apples. The Democrats are in the midst of a nomination fight. Obama is more personally inspiring, etc. etc. But this doesn’t relieve the tremendous burden that we face as a party to get this right. We need an Apollo program to make the Internet the engine of Republican campaigns in the 21st century. I don’t intend to spend the next fifteen years explaining how we failed to seize upon the Internet as a transformative medium in the same way that Democrats failed with direct mail and grassroots activism in the ’70s and ’80s.
We can make all the excuses we want. The Democrats will always be portrayed the beneficiaries of a perfect storm, no matter what we do. In 2003, they were portrayed as doing better online because they were penniless and the underdog. In 2008, when we are penniless and the underdog, Democrats are winning online because they’re ascendant. Figure that. In 2004, John Kerry was supposed to win on the backs of millions of landline-chucking young voters who didn’t get polled.
The Democrats and the media will always try to psych us out by saying it’s not our time, that all the energy is on their side. (Look how they duped the smart Beltway money into thinking 2008 would be another wave, holding back Republican recruitment and triggering a flood of retirements.) It doesn’t matter how many polls say John McCain is winning in states like Pennsylvania and Oregon, just as the grassroots army the Bush campaign built in 2004 didn’t matter… until Election Day.
Maybe we won’t win in absolute terms. But there is nobility in trying. In throwing the kitchen sink at the problem. In closing the gap as much as is humanly possible, so that those who come after can build it even better.
This is not a criticism of the team working on this. One need only look at their aggressive use of online advertising to gauge their technical proficiency. I’ve highlighted the smart and refreshing way they reach out to swing voters to tell the McCain story.
The problem is that no one in the high command seriously believes that the online campaign can be as big and strategically important as Finance, or Political, or Communications. The McCain campaign needs to start by giving the eCampaign the same operational leeway in scheduling the candidate as the other divisions have — even if it’s just two minutes a day for an authentic McCain video blog that breaks news and creates value. They need to be given the authority to rewrite the rules, with real-time fundraising transparency that lays bare the urgency of the situation and gives the grassroots what they need to ride to the rescue. Grassroots empowerment must be made a central ethos of the campaign.
Bunding reached its zenith in 2004, and it truly was a sight to behold at its peak. But it’s past time to start working on what comes next.
FOR MORE: Read Sean Hackbarth.
Comments (30) 
Trackbacks (7) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Why would small donor Republicans donate to a candidate who supports open borders and unlimited immigration? Why would they donate to a candidate who has yet to propose a single cut in government spending? Why would they donate to a candidate who supports racial set asides, racial quotas, and racial goals for jobs, education, and contracting? Why would any sane middle class, small amount donor donate to a candiate who appeals to the rich and elite while promoting a host of policies that will make life harder for the middle class?
SuperD -
While I still need to process some of what Ruffini said he has some valid points.
I understand your frustrations and everyone knows that they are shared by more members of the core of the R base than the McCain campaign and national R leaders would like. That said I think there are a couple of factors that are not being taken into account - 1) that Hilary or, to a much lesser extent, Obama will serve as a massive motivating agent for core R’s that will push them past some of the concerns you have listed. It could be further argued that base R’s who may not agree with McCain on everything but are frightened at the prospect of Prez Hil or Obama are going to be much less likely to be motivated enough to throw McCain the same kind of higher dollar donation they gave President Bush making Ruffini’s arguments all the more salient.
2) Jonathan Martin had an interesting post yesterday (http://tinyurl.com/6c78n8) that highlights the fact that while R elite voters (which, I may be wrong, but is a group you seem to fall under) may be rubbed the wrong way by McCain - more average voters (i.e. voters who don’t regularly read Ruffini…) hold him in high esteem. Again, this group of individuals is far more likely to be willing to give a low dollar amount versus several hundred or maxing out.
If either of these things are true a strategy that does not capitalize on them leaves money on the table and forgoes the opportunity to further solidify and energize their level of support as donations are known to do.
Marco, even if not-as-active voters like McCain the campaign has to reach out to them, get their e-mail addresses, and ask for donations. He’s not doing that right now. Instead, he’s doing high-dollar Bush 43-style fundraisers. He’s not tapping into the small donors like Obama is doing.
Agree - those comments were made in support of Patrick’s “call to arms”
McCain’s fundraising strategy is not the problem. The problem is the candidate. No matter how you strategize, fundraising in McCain’s name is not going to produce much dough. Most of the base figure that there are three flavors of Democrat running at this point. McCain has alienated the conservative base. They may hold their nose and vote for him, but they are not going to give him any money.
His support lies mostly with independents. The problem is that independents are inherently wishy-washy and are unlikely to give any money to a candidate - unless they are the naïve kind that vote based on feelings and can be “inspired” by a political candidate. Obama has already locked in the vast majority of the “inspired” independents, which is a big part of the reason why he is raking in a fortune each month. McCain is too old and worn out to peal off any of those from Obama.
For that reason, it is probably wise for McCain to try to live off the Republican National Committee’s Victory fund. Though, the RNC is not going to be able to raise much itself, given the demoralization of the base.
McCain has alienated the conservative base. They may hold their nose and vote for him, but they are not going to give him any money.
Bingo. Brian. Call me a nativist, an agent of intolerance, or chickenhawk, I’m not easily offended. I’m just not going to give to a candidate who calls me names then asks me for money.
Team McBeth is not about winning the general election to lead this country, their plan is to run a respectable second and take control of the RNC. The long term problem is that so long as Team McBeth runs the RNC, they will have problems raising money.
Fund raising under Team McBeth is the long term problem for the party.
I like McCain and strongly support him for President. I really want to contribute to his campaign but I can’t because the names of donors are made public and are easily accessed via online searches.
My career would be over if I was “outed” as a Republican or McCain supporter. The Left preaches tolerance but does not practice it.
I don’t understand the problem…I sent him a handful of Bush Mexican pesos…isn’t that enough???
Angry and Brian -
Again, I get it - you are part of the small but very vocal portion of the R party that overheats every time you think of McCain - Heaven knows my staff and I heard the complaints loudly and often enough while I was in Iowa to convince me that there was no way - ESPECIALLY after the immigration debate - that the campaign would recover. And then something completely bizarre happened - he won the nomination.
I think McCain and his team proved once again that, for whatever reason, they fundamentally understand New Hampshire - anyone who denies that is insane. What, imho, partially mitigates alot of what you are saying is the fact that - as Ruffini points out - McCain was also able to win in a state like Florida in the face of a Republican-only primary where, if I understand you correctly he never should have won.
The fact that higher-than-expected turnout among R’s due to outside factors may have contributed to his win completely supports what has been said - that although there is a small but vocal segment of the R base that is still disaffected by McCain there also exists a sizable group of R voters who may not read political blogs every day (or ever) but still view McCain very positively.
I agree that a robust strategy to identify and reach out to these voters is important but I also feel that their apparent decision to utilize the RNC in a more robust fashion is absolutely the right thing for them to do.
Don’t forget that the RNC Victory programs do not solely benefit the R Pres candidate but other key R candidates as well (and by extension state and local R candidates). I believe that by “outsourcing” the ground ops they are able to provide an environment where the R voters who may not want to support McCain but are active supporters of their local Fed candidates can still be counted on for financial.
As for the assertion that the McCain team’s only goal is to “take over” the RNC I think one only need to look at their proposed structure to see that that is not the case. Had they wanted to do that - as many other candidates have in the past - they would have wiped out all of the RNC’s current staff and replaced them with McCain insiders and loyalists. If you can prove to me that Mike DuHaime ran Giuliani’s campaign while being a McCain insider or loyalist…
marco,
McCain received 37% of the vote in New Hampshire. That is not a rousing success.
Most conservatives realize that McCain has little chance of winning the election, does not care at all about the down ticket Republicans, and if a miracle occurs and he is elected, he will spend his time stabbing Republicans in the back every chance he gets.
The argument of vote for bad Republican candidate instead of the Democratic candidate has to stop. It is why the Republican party is in total collapse, the national debt is nine trillion dollars, and the government keeps growing.
Until the Republican leadership decides to start acting like conservatives, there is no reason to support the big state, big spending, big pork barreling Republicans.
Don’t appreciate Marco’s charge that those who are concerned about McCain’s positions are “overheated”. I don’t appreciate it any more than I liked being called a racist by McCain when I opposted the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”. I have strong, reasoned concern about McCain, which makes me hesitate to contribute financially to his campaign. I gave to Bush’s campaign, and wished for the last 3 years that I could have a refund. My household will likely NOT contribute this time around. I would also like to point out that the whole nation did not get to vote on a party candidate. The choice was largely determined by the time I got a chance to vote in the primaries. We have had McCain shoved down our throats. And he may be the least offensive candidate, but most of the Republican base is far from enthusiastic about him.
Excellent points. If we don’t solve this problem then we will shortly be ruled over by that racist, anti-American Obama.
lol - ok Lily first - I was not calling base R voters who do not like McCain overheated. What I was saying is that there is a segment of the Republican base whose blood begins to boil when they talk about McCain. We can substitute “riled up”, “fired up”, “irritated” or any other similar phrasing if you would like but the fact remains that the reaction exhibited above is not isolated and is expressed in identical fashion by many other voters who make up that particular portion of the R base. They are exactly who Jonathan Martin’s blog posted that I referenced earlier identified as “political elites.”
Less that phrase rouse similar sentiments of defense I think i need to clarify that no where in any of my previous posts have I ever made any type of moral judgment on the rightness or wrongness of feeling that way and I don’t believe that Martin meant it that way either. The “political elites”/McCain-averse portion the R base is a highly involved, highly passionate group of individuals who hold their ideals closely enough and are interested enough in the political process to devote the same amount of time most people spend reading People or US Weekly to reading political insider blogs like this one. Again - no positive or negative adjectives - just an objective assessment.
Speaking of objective assessments - SuperD I love you man (or woman as the case may be) but are you really trying to mitigate McCain’s NH win by saying that it doesn’t mean a whole lot because he only got 37%? How many candidates were there in that race?
I’m thinking 37% is pretty damn good in a field with 6 candidates - if the assertion is true that “Most conservatives realize that McCain has little chance of winning the election, does not care at all about the down ticket Republicans, and if a miracle occurs and he is elected, he will spend his time stabbing Republicans in the back every chance he gets.” and I’d say 37% is pretty amazing.
Lily, being called “overheated” is no where near as harsh as being called a racist. Thicker skin is in order.
I know McCain still has a problem with the conservative base. On my weblog I’ve been pointing that out for some time. My point is McCain has barely tried to tap his online supporters. His campaign is more focused on big-money fundraising events instead of trying a series of online campaigns that learn from what all the other candidates have done this season.
Patrick suggested daily McCain videos that are actually news. There’s no reason he shouldn’t try that. It surely engages online supporters better than press release quotes that filter through the MSM and weblogs.
What I want McCain’s campaign to try is reach out to their supporters and ask them for their support. At the same time he needs to build bridges to conservative critics.
Whether someone calls me ‘racist’ or ‘overheated’, the intent is the same: to negate my point of view and to shut me up.
My point is, like many conservatives, I have strong reservations about this candidate, and it impacts my decision on whether to contribute any $$$ to the cause.
You seem to assume that people are not contributing to McCain because the campaign has not been clever enough in soliciting money. I say that individuals would look for a way to contribute if they felt strongly about McCain. I know I would. Every time I get nervous about Obama, I think about donating. And then I remember my serious reservations about McCain. I am not alone.
Lily, based on my experience supporters will seldom give if they’re not asked. Just like they’ll seldom volunteer unless they’re asked. It’s human nature. Instead of asking his online supporters, the ones already getting his e-mails and presumably interested in his campaign, McCain’s been doing Bush-style big-money fundraisers. Compare that to Obama doing a handful of them and instead stumping. Who’s using their time better?
Reaching out to conservative critics is a whole different issue, and something McCain hasn’t done well. But that’s a different than not fully utilizing the supporters he already has.
There is an overarching reason for all of this: McCain is a terrible candidate. I am an independent who served in the first Gulf War and voted Republican in the last 3 elections, and I have thrown in the towel on McCain.
Here’s why:
On at least five occasions, John McCain claimed that Iran, a Shia nation, was supporting Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group. That’s like claiming the Hatfields and the McCoys have joined forces. How is he going to be an effective Commander in Chief if he can’t keep the players straight?
Talking a good macho game is one thing. Being bone stick stone stupid on the details is not gonna work.
He’s already told us the economy is not his strong suit. That’s putting it mildly. His primary economic adviser is Phil Gramm, the architect of the legislation that led to the current subprime crisis. I have friends and neighbors who have lost their homes. Call it guilt by association if you will, but it’s a little too close for comfort for me.
Don’t even get me started on gas prices.
And then there’s his hair-trigger temper and crass sense of “humor” as evidenced by his calling his wife a c*** in front of reporters and his hideous joke about Chelsea Clinton (Q: Why is Chelsea so ugly? A: Because Janet Reno was her father)
That offends me. I’m sorry. Values actually mean something to me.
People get all hysterical about Obama, but given the damage that’s already been done by Bush, how much worse can he be? At least he can think on his own two feet and seems to actually understand both sides of a problem, not just give lip service and go his own way.
I am going to vote Democrat this time, and maybe not even hold my nose while doing it. I never thought I’d live to see the day.
Republicans cannot harness the Internet right now for a very simple reason: you cannot control the message online. Online donors are not simply an Internet-based ATM to be accessed at the will in the old way simply via a new medium.
Internet donors want a piece of the action for their time and money. They want to be heard, to have an effect on the campaign and on the conversation. It’s a cliche, but they want to be *empowered*.
The traditional Republican model has been to distribute the talking points and rally the base using a very top-down pyramidal structure. Talk radio has been very effective in assisting with that model. Message control is paramount.
That strict and unswerving message control has been an incredible ally for Republicans in the past–and the inability to control and maintain a message has been harmful to Democrats.
But that liability is becoming an asset, and vice versa. On the Internet, people don’t do top-down, and they don’t just take and repeat talking points without putting up serious challenges from the inside. The GOP took down its own Bush re-election blog because because they couldn’t keep people from saying “private social security accounts” instead of the Luntz-testing “personal accounts”. You can’t do that in this brave new world without alienating your online donor base.
This is not just a question of the GOP learning to utilize a tool. It’s a question of the GOP sacrificing message control to gain online support. It’s a question of the party changing its very organizing DNA.
That will be a difficult challenge going forward.
“McCain needs both the fat cats and little guys behind him “
The GOP has spent the last 6 years doing anything and everything to alienate the base.
Open borders,amnesty,refunding the the welfare state,the biggest new entitlement in 2 generations,earmarks and tons of corporate welfare and massive growth of government.
Why the hell would I give these clowns a penny after the holy war they waged on the base?
Let’em call their fatcat friends.
I’m a Democrat but I like to go on fairminded GOP sites like this one to see what the other side is thinking. Wow, my local conservative talk radio is just like you guys, your not to thrilled with John McCain. My overall view is people like you will hold your nose and vote for McCain, but won’t canvass neighborhoods and contribute money to him. Some pundit early in the primary talked about the “enthusiasm gap”.Its out there folks, my side is energized and focused. I’m not predicting a Obama win, but we’ll be in the trenches with EVERYTHING WE GOT! We will pick up Senate and House seats too. Personally I think McCain is too old and worn out. An honorable man, but old.
Of course, Senator McCain is going to do well in fund raising from rich fat cats.
Rich fat cats support open borders and unlimited immigration. It lowers wages for them but does not affect the elite private school their children attend, or affect property values in their exclusive neighborhoods, or affect their children’s job prospects.
Fat cats want a bigger government so that they can make money on government contracts. They can big on contracts while having access to the means to avoid the new rules.
Fat cats love social engineering, speech restriction, and big government. They can always get around the rule while the middle class bears the full weight.
Why would anyone to think McCain cares about their children when his own daughter attended an elite prep school in Arizona, Columbia University, and still ended up a stupid ditz.
To Indy Joe:
Obama is an extremist. He wants to ban concealed guns. He is the most liberal senator of this senate and the most liberal senator of all time.
McCain didn’t call his wife by that name. It was a lie.
McCain has talked in depth thousands of times about the differences between sunnis and shiites.
Obama called the leader of canada the president of canada.
Obama said 10,000 people died in a tornado in kansas.
All candidates make slip ups. Clinton makes a new one everyday contradicting what she said earlier.
McCain was chairman of the commerce committee. Read the transcripts of the hundreds of hearings he did.
McCain didn’t say he knew nothing about the economy he said he was better at national security.
What in the world does obama know about the economy.
Indy Joe you are basing your vote not on the record but of distorted youtube clips.
Can’t wait for Jeramiah White to be the guest of honor at the white house.
This nation has gone off the deep end.
Does anyone really believe that the staffers on the McCain campaign would be able to put together a video blog for Senator McCain that would be able to stand up to the nitpicking of the left’s bloggers.
My guess is that such video blogs would be filled with error filled statements, poor research, and gaffes that the rest of the McCain campaign has had.
Doing a video blog would play to the strengths of the left in organizing issue on line, on internet research, and in networking. It also plays to the weaknesses of the McCain campaign on accuracy, competence, research, and shaping a message.
I am officially washing my hands of this thread after this post.
David and Sean - thank you for injecting some logic-based analysis into these conversations. It amuses me that we can accuse the Dems of following Obama based solely on emotional response in one sentence and then rail again our nominee utilizing nothing but emotive nonsense with nary a fact behind it.
Again - you all have every right to your opinions. But this is nothing new - I saw this exact same pattern repeated time and again on the ground in Iowa. Voters would tell us they didn’t like McCain because he was pro-choice or because he supported this or supported that and even after we painstakingly pointed them to verifiable truths that disproved each and every reason they said they wouldn’t support him they would say something like “eh well that may be but still.”
The good news is that, as I have said many many times, it is a small but vocal segment of the R base that feels this way.
Joe - I know it may SEEM like the entirety of the R party feels this way but the reality is that you are only hearing one side of the story - you just happen to be going to sources of information with the highly involved R voters tend to congregate.
Now - i am NOT saying that everything is smooth sailing for Team McCain and that he doesn’t need to continue to work to shore up the base BUT the reality is that if it was anything more than a small portion of R voters who felt this way there is ABSOLUTELY no way he would be our nominee right now.
Don’t forget folks - several months ago the McCain-haters chill out folks - its not a pejorative term) in the party had wiped McCain off the map taking him from front runner and poll leader to back of the pack (as far as credible candidates were concerned) with no chance in hell at recovery AND YET…
Marco, you are making the point that McCain is more electable than any of the other Republican candidates for the nomination. I think you are correct (though I think that Guliani might have been as electable - but for an incredibly flawed primary strategy). The point of the post and the thread is whether McCain fundraising is poor because of a bad strategy. About half of the posters say - no. They think that it is because the candidate alienated the “highly involved R voters” (as you accurately described them) who contribute $ and sweat to Republican campaigns. McCain may be the most viable republican candidate for the general election - but he will have to fight that fight at a huge $ disadvantage to Obama.
Whether he wins in the end – I do not know. It seems to me that the election will be more about whether Obama implodes than anything McCain does or says. So, maybe the money and enthusiasm gap won’t matter.
>> Obama is an extremist. He wants to ban concealed guns. > He is the most liberal senator of this senate and the most liberal senator of all time.> McCain didn’t call his wife by that name. It was a lie.> McCain has talked in depth thousands of times about the differences between sunnis and shiites.
Sorry, I screwed that up with the arrows I guess.
Now I don’t have time to type it all out again.
I would have voted for Hagel, but…
I guess my biggest point is the USA is the greatest nation on Earth and I’m proud to have served her. With everything the conservatives have done to screw things up over the last 8 years, with total control of the govt, forgive me if I don’t cower in terror at the thought of a “liberal.”
Besides, I thought Kerry was the most liberal senator of all time. Oh right, that was last election…
One thing you gotta admit about Obama, he’s cool as a cucumber. I’ve been in combat and I’d rather have someone like that than a hothead like Grampa.
$ for McAmnesty? Just say no.
When you make a donation to a political candidate you are making an investment in a particular future, tempered by the politician’s agenda.
John McCain has not given me factually support reasons to invest in the future he proposes. If he wants me to he needs to embrace Mitt Romeny and the future he proposes.
Thank you for your time.
[…] Gerald Seib projects the new map. Ruffini worries that the GOP enter the general with an empty pocketbook. Norquist continues to hype VP Rice, delighting cable news producers everywhere. […]
[…] A Call to Arms […]
[…] In other words, if the goal of public financing is to stop special interests from coopting cash-hungry candidates with big donations (doesn’t McCain-Feingold already do that to some extent?), then in theory a candidate whose money comes from hundreds of thousands of average voters in small donations is equally insulated from that risk. Obama raised $28 million online in January, per the Times, compared to $4 million from traditional donors. (McCain raised a meager $4 million online in March, leading to much teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing from Republican Internet consultants.) What’s going to happen when Hillary drops out and her own big money supporters — at least the ones who aren’t hopelessly disgruntled — start chipping in to Obama, though? True public financing prevents that; the Obama version of public financing, which is really just private financing with a broader-than-usual base, doesn’t. More to the point, who’s going to object if and when this happens? The left, for all its piety about campaign finance reform, won’t be pounding the table about it with Obama riding his cash rocket to the White House. The right has always treated campaign donations as a subset of free speech, which makes it hard to get too indignant about a candidate opting out and thereby giving his donors a “voice.” The only well positioned critic is Maverick himself, who’ll make a stink about Obama reneging on his pledge, get some minor political mileage out of it from a few weeks, and then go back to the hard business of figuring out how to fill a fundraising gap that may approach nine figures. Gulp. […]
[…] For an interesting analysis of John McCain’s fundraising woes see the post by Patrick Ruffini. I’m glad that someone finally had the guts to say it. Now let’s see if the McCain campaign is smart enough to listen to Patrick’s great advice. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
[…] McCain could make the state more competitive, but can a campaign so obviously hampered in the cash department really score a win there? […]
[…] The problem with Sen. Obama is he is raising so much damn money he is probably going to win. […]
[…] Now that this shoe’s dropped, all we’re waiting on is Barry O’s formal announcement that he’s opting out of public financing and the terms are set. Exit quotation from the Times: “Obama has raised more in small donations than McCain has raised in his entire campaign.” Not just small donations, guys — online small donations, which involve virtually no cost to the campaign. A young, energized, Net-savvy base is a nice thing to have. […]