Q2 Fundraising

by hilzoy

I had been reading all these suggestions that John McCain's fundraising numbers were going to be really bad. When I first saw them, I thought: gosh, $11.2 million doesn't seem that shabby to me. On reflection, it still doesn't. However, the real story for McCain's campaign has to be not just the numbers themselves, but the numbers in conjuction with the fact that, as NRO writes: "They raised $11.2 million in the second quarter, but spent $14.4 million," leaving what the AP describes as "an abysmal $2 million cash on hand." More from the AP, plus reflections on Obama's numbers, below the fold.

"More than 50 staffers, and perhaps as many as 80 to 100, were being let go, and senior aides will be subject to pay cuts as the Arizona senator bows to six months of subpar fundraising, according to officials with knowledge of the details of the shake up. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the campaign would not publicly discuss details of the restructuring.

McCain's tally in the second financial quarter, which ended Saturday, is expected to trail those of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, who have not yet released their totals. In the first quarter, McCain came in third and raised just $13.6 million.

Officials said the fundamental leadership of the campaign will not change; Nelson, a veteran of President Bush's winning 2004 campaign, will remain campaign manager but said he would volunteer his time instead of drawing a salary for the next few months.

At its peak, McCain's payroll covered 150 staffers; this is the second round of layoffs.

The campaign said it was seriously considering taking public matching funds, which Nelson said would amount to about $6 million. That would be a major shift in strategy for McCain and could tie the campaign's hands by limiting the amount of money it can spend in individual states.

Nelson said the campaign made "incorrect assumptions" about its fundraising ability.

"At one point, we believed that we would raise over $100 million during this calendar year, and we constructed a campaign that was based on that assumption," Nelson said. That, he said, proved to be wrong."

I'll say.

This, I think, is one more sign of the implosion of the Republican party. I didn't care for McCain's attempts to make up with the religious right, and I've lost a lot of respect for him over the last few years, but for all that he was the only person on the Republican side who seemed to be living in the same universe I live in -- one in which building bigger, better walls along more and more borders does not constitute an immigration policy, and Guantanamo is not just an excuse to start a bidding war to see who can go furthest in trashing what remains of our human rights record. (Ron Paul doesn't count.) In the Republican debates, McCain seemed to me to be the only one who recognized in any way that actions have consequences, and that policies are not just gestures that one makes in the hopes that the base will find them aesthetically pleasing. And he's the one who's tanking.

***

And then there's Obama:

"Senator Barack Obama raised at least $32.5 million from April through June, he announced Sunday on his campaign Web site, attracting more than 258,000 contributors since entering the Democratic presidential race nearly six months ago.

As candidates tabulated how much money they raised in the year’s second quarter, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, appeared to be leading contenders from either party, raising at least $31 million for the primary campaign alone. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, raised about $21 million for the primary, a spokesman confirmed Sunday, and about $27 million over all.

“Together, we have built the largest grass-roots campaign in history for this stage of a presidential race,” Mr. Obama said, adding that 154,000 new donors had signed on in the last three months. “That’s the kind of movement that can change the special-interest-driven politics in Washington and transform our country. And it’s just the beginning.” (...)

John Edwards’s campaign said Sunday that it had raised more than $9 million, while Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico reported raising $7 million and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut reported raising $3.25 million."

MyDD:

"Since the beginning of the campaign 110,000 people have given online to the Obama campaign, or more than 40 percent of his donors. For year year, 90 percent of the online donations to the Obama campaign have been in amounts of $100 dollars or less, and a half of the online donations have been in amounts of $25 or less."

Marc Ambinder:

"There is no other way to put it: not only did Sen. Barack Obama set a record for single quarter donations by a Democratic candidate, but his fundraising total -- $31M from 154,000 new donors -- imposes an obligaton on all of us who cover the race: we need to figure out why the "national" frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, isn't generating as much excitement as her chief competitor."

I honestly have no idea why Obama leads in fundraising but not in the polls. It would be easy to come up with explanations if he led only in terms of money raised -- then I'd just say that rich people like him more than everyone else -- but he also leads by a large margin in number of donors. MyDD reports that "Since the beginning of the campaign 110,000 people have given online to the Obama campaign, or more than 40 percent of his donors. For year year, 90 percent of the online donations to the Obama campaign have been in amounts of $100 dollars or less, and a half of the online donations have been in amounts of $25 or less." (What 'year year' means, I don't know, but on any reading, that's a lot of small donors.)

The only thing that leaps to mind as a possible explanation is this: polls and donors are two different populations. Donors are probably always more engaged than people chosen at random, but donors in the second quarter of the year before the election -- nearly a year before anyone will actually be casting votes -- are probably a lot more engaged. If Obama is doing better among people who are paying attention, and who care enough to donate money, that might mean that what the fundraising shows us is a rough estimate of how people feel once they have familiarized themselves with the candidates, and the value of name recognition wears off.

I'm aware, though, that this explanation is favorable to Obama. I'm not conscious of adopting it for that reason, but I'm more than usually interested in hearing possible explanations I haven't thought of.

The Democrats are raising a ton of money, though. It's pretty breathtaking.

Comments

[rilkefan]

I think an element of this is that many Clinton supporters see her with a large lead and don't feel motivated to send her money now, but Obama has contributors who support him because of his charisma (and who seek a personal connection to that by giving him money, or by paying to see him [there was something slightly odd about this at mydd]) or who think with enough money he can get past HRC.

There might be some gender differences in contributing reflected here as well.

Or maybe his fundraising staff has a better sense of the electorate than Clinton's.

[OCSteve]

Byron York:

One question was how McCain's fundraising was affected by his stand in favor of the recent immigration bill. "You can't quantify it," said top adviser John Weaver. "We do know that it had a significant effect in this last quarter. We're very proud of John taking a leadership role in this…but we wouldn't be straight with you if we told you that it didn't have an impact. Having said that, that debate is now over…but it did have an impact."

Not only were some donors withholding their money – some were demanding refunds of earlier donations (from the RNC in general, not necessarily from McCain).

He’s done – stick a fork in him.

[Bryan]

I think the answer also becomes clearer when you look at national name recognition, and favorability/unfavorability, between Hillary and Obama. (Full disclosure, I am one of those Obama donors.) Hillary still has a far higher name recognition than Obama among the general public. Essentially, everyone already knows who Hillary is, and I think she's the default answer in polls for Democratic-leaning voters who haven't given the race much attention yet and haven't yet had the chance to take a close look at Obama. At the same time, Hillary has a nationwide 52% *unfavorable* rating; a lot of not just Republicans but independents know about her but don't like her. She doesn't have much room to grow her supporters without overcoming a lot of resistance.

On the other hand, Obama still has a wide field of potential voters who aren't yet very familiar with him, whom he has the chance to win over. The people who have been paying attention early on, who have actively investigated the Democratic candidates, have tilted much more toward Obama. So, numbers of donors is, I think, a leading indicator of where the polls are going to go as more and more people start tuning in to the campaigns.

[rilkefan]

"At the same time, Hillary has a nationwide 52% *unfavorable* rating"

while beating the Republican candidates in the polls.

This doesn't tell us anything about the interesting difference between her primary polling lead and Obama's fundraising lead.

[Donna]

I am one of Obama's small donors and have sent two checks to his campaign so far, neither of those checks being very substantial unless you realize that they are indeed substantial relative to my low income.
The reason I have donated to Obama may surprise you. Whether he wins the nomination or the presidency is not the point of my donations, though I very much would like to see Obama win both. The point of my donations is that I feel good supporting what he is already successfully achieving, which is the elevation of politics beyond 1] insider control by moneyed elites, 2] negative attacks, and 3] reliance on sound bite sloganeering.

Obama is one intelligent and street savvy guy with a history of having not surrendered his youthful idealism. I see his candidancy as already providing leadership in setting a healthier tone which the other candidates are following. My donations are my way of applauding his already successful trend setting away from 'politics as usual'. I am a woman in my sixties, by the way.

[OCSteve]

I'm not conscious of adopting it for that reason, but I'm more than usually interested in hearing possible explanations I haven't thought of.

This might be a partial answer:

The consistent lead that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has maintained over Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and others in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is due largely to one factor: her support from women.
In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, Clinton led Obama by a 2 to 1 margin among female voters. Her 15-point lead in the poll is entirely attributable to that margin.

2 to 1 is a pretty large gap. So – does that mean that men are more likely to make a donation than women? If women account for her lead in the polls, but the money is not flowing her way…

Looks like it may have more to do with income level (and discretionary income):

Clinton is drawing especially strong support from lower-income, lesser-educated women -- voters her campaign strategists describe as "women with needs." Obama, by contrast, is faring better among highly educated women, who his campaign says are interested in elevating the political discourse.

A good chunk of HRC’s support is coming from women who can least afford to spare a candidate $20.

[allmaya]

Why does Obama lead in donations while Hillary leads in the polls? My Gut-O-Meter says it is because Hillary's support is blue collar based and Obama's is white collar/professional based. Methinks the average Obama supporter has far more education than the average Hillary supporter. The educated folks have more discretionary income that can be used for such things as political donations.

[Bruce Baugh]

I suppose it would be churlish to suggest that a lot of polling is, either in methodology or reporting, skewed by media narratives already in place, while fundraising data only have to be accountable to real people doing things on their own.

[rilkefan]

"I suppose it would be churlish to suggest that a lot of polling is, either in methodology or reporting, skewed by media narratives already in place"

Well, it might as well be the case that Clinton is underpolled based on media narratives in place as over.

[dougie smooth]

Although this isn't borne out by the head-to-head numbers, I suspect that there may be a large number of Obama donors who are independents or republicans*, and this group is not represented in the primary polling of voters registered as Democrats.

(*Speaking as a single sample point from Madison WI, I have heard conservative friends express intrigue in Obama, while I have yet to talk to a liberal friend who is a strong HRC supporter.)

[J Thomas]

Dougie, are those republicans who are considering voting for Obama, or are they republicans who want Obama to be the nominee so a republican nominee will win?

It's hard for me to imagine dixiecrats voting for Obama, one thing considered.

[dougie smooth]

J Thomas, these are 25-35yo republican friends who have sheepishly admitted the destruction and division wrought by Bushco, and I think Obama's "people are hungry for a change" theme is resonant enough not to be dismissed out of hand as democrap.

As for Obama getting dixiecrat votes, I will admit to being naively optimistic.

[alec]

Rudy Giuliani or Vampire Ghouliani?

[Shazam McShotgunstein]

"As for Obama getting dixiecrat votes, I will admit to being naively optimistic."

I don't think the optimism is that naive. Harold Ford came within three percentage points of winning the Tennessee Senate race last year. These are not your father's Dixiecrats anymore.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/