.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Campaign fundraising

From CNN.
RAISED IN SEPTEMBER:
RNC $13 million
DNC $5.6 million

NRSC $5,146,209
DSCC $13.6 million

NRCC $12 million
DCCC $14.4million

CASH ON HAND

RNC $26 million
DNC $8.2 million

NRSC $12,058, 137
DSCC $23.1 million

NRCC $39.2 million
DCCC $36 million

(The NRCC dropped in another $8.5 million yesterday. Top expenditure $870,000 in Roskam/Duckworth (Roskam +4%))

posted by mikevotes at 2:49 PM

7 Comments:

  • Mike, do you see a correlation between fund raising and vote outcomes? It has been suggested on the basis of grass root support, but I'm not convinced that is where the bulk of the funds come fro0m.

    By Blogger Cartledge, at 6:08 PM  

  • (Sorry for the delay in response, blogger has been down for hours.)

    Longish answer. Yes, in general there is a correlation between fundraising and election success with a bunch of caveats.

    1) The majority of donations are generally given by the wealthy and corporate interests so fundraising does not necessarily reflect grass roots. The Republicans generally outraise the Democrats 60/40 or so, but that reflects more their support among the wealthy than the dispersion of voters.

    2) Generally, corporate and pac money (smart money) is more of a business expense buying access than a genuine expression of support. If I want a particular coal legislation, I am going to give my money not only to someone who supports my legislation, but more importantly to someone who is going to win whether they are in my district or not.

    Giving that money to someone who will lose is a waste. So, those likely to win are more likely to get donations, therefore, those who get more donations are already more predisposed towards winning.

    It's a correlation, but not necessarily an obvious one.

    3) As a general rule, incumbency offers significant advantages in fundraising and incumbents independent of money are generally more likely to be elected. Again indirect correlation.

    4) Depending on the market, money really matters. Buying ad space in a smaller district with several TV stations(competition) doesn't take too much, but if your district is in a large market and competitive (Philadelphia) you have to have lots of money.

    Overall, in a standard year, money really does matter. You don't necessarily have to outraise your opponent to win, but you do need enough money to defend against attacks. Money is also extremely important for get out the vote.

    However, this is not the standard year. Still not sure how much of a "wave" we're going to see. If the Dem voters are passionate enough, a money gap will not be as big of a deal.

    The two subnotes here, The democrats have several groups outside who assist them(inefficiently) with advertising and election day volunteers. (Unions as example.) That fudges the money gap a bit.

    Second, The thing I'm noticing is that the Dems are reaching parity in fundraising after lagging behind so long. (The smart money is at least hedging towards them.) It's ectremely rare for the Dems to be near parity.

    All over the place in this answer, but I would say there is, in a standard year, a correlation, but that may reflect an already underlying predisposition in the race. This year may be different.

    Totals raised don't really reflect grass roots support. For that, the thing to look for (which may come after the election) is the relative umbers of small donations, under $100. That probably more accurately shows the intention of average people.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 10:04 PM  

  • No problem, i couldn't get here :)
    Thanks for that comprehensive explanation. Very helpful.

    By Blogger Cartledge, at 10:31 PM  

  • Mike, that was great thanks. I would like to draw for this if you don't mind. With credit of course.

    By Blogger Cartledge, at 10:37 PM  

  • Of course. And, please, I wrote it in one straight go, so if you do clip any of it, feel free to edit. (Probably better off just rewriting.)

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 11:15 AM  

  • Mike, I really appreciate yuor insights, and have written over and around, If I can keep a connection for a couple of hours i will post the story later today.
    My ISP is a bit wonky at the moment and I just need to find some references to complete it.
    Thanks again.

    By Blogger Cartledge, at 3:11 PM  

  • The story is up on the front page at galleonpoint.com
    I'm still having connectivity problems so it was a matter of posting in the window. I will catch you on it later no doubt.
    Any suggestions you can reach me through the contact button.

    By Blogger Cartledge, at 6:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home