The Winding Road To The Republican Nomination For President

@Setanta,

Here's a similar look at it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/200-donations-final.png?uuid=DmcJ0F1mEeGnKZdjFNxFkg

Obama has raised more from donors who have given less than $200 than every GOP candidate combined. By double!

It's not just a question of the money, it's an indicator of broad-based support. Obama's model is based on reaching out to individuals who are not rich and asking them to donate small amounts. The GOP just doesn't believe this model is effective, preferring to rely upon large donations from the wealthy (whose interests they most certainly can be relied upon to protect).

In 2008 it was one of the keys to Obama's victory - will it be again this year?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

Thanks again, Boss.

0 Replies

By the way, it looks significant to me that Romney's competition have donations from under $200 donors which almost match what they've gotten from the over $200 donors. In Romney's case, it ain't even close. That suggests that the support of the one's breathing down Romney's neck is, within a narrow demographic, also broad-based.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

The problem with the graphic is it only shows percentages and has no relation to what each candidate actually has collected.

Romney spent $18.7 million in January while Santorum by the end of January had only raised $6.7 million total for his campaign including a January that doubled what he raised all of last year.

Edit -
Oops, I hadn't seen the new graphic which covers that issue.

1 Reply

@parados,

What i was referring to is that Santorum, Gingrich and Paul have all gotten a significant proportion of their funds from small donors--over 40%. Romney hasn't even gotten 10% of his money from small donors.

1 Reply

Word on the street today is that Romney is going to propose an across the board, 20 percent tax cut for all Americans, as his new 'tax plan.' How to pay for this? "Through the growth generated by lower tax rates."

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I think the other factor is that this graphic leaves out super PAC money. Both Romney and Gingrich have much more money in super PAC contributions than what shows up in their campaign disclosures. All the money is likely in the >$200 bucket. Obama likely falls in this category as well.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The GOP just doesn't believe this model is effective, preferring to rely upon large donations from the wealthy (whose interests they most certainly can be relied upon to protect).

I'd go so far as to say that the small donor model won't work for them because their message is not broadly supported -- especially the longer this primary continues on and forces the candidates to ascribe to more and more ultra-conservative positions. I mean seriously, come out against birth control in the USA in 2012 and see how many people will give you $200 to run for president.

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

I mean seriously, come out against birth control in the USA in 2012 and see how many people will give you $200 to run for president.

It's like shouting "go give your money to the other guy."

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The GOP just doesn't believe this model is effective, preferring to rely upon large donations from the wealthy (whose interests they most certainly can be relied upon to protect).

I'd go so far as to say that the small donor model won't work for them because their message is not broadly supported -- especially the longer this primary continues on and forces the candidates to ascribe to more and more ultra-conservative positions. I mean seriously, come out against birth control in the USA in 2012 and see how many people will give you $200 to run for president.

I dunno - they garner a large enough percentage of the vote, consistently, that I think large parts (if not all) of their message are in fact supported. But, they haven't been a populist, 'look-out-for-the-little-guy' party for a long time; certainly not in my lifetime. I think they could have greater success with a wider fundraising model, but the truth is that they have NO equivalent to the online presence of OFA (Obama for America) or the DNC.

Online fundraising for the Dems is currently the equivalent of direct mail marketing for the GOP - the Dems are light-years ahead, both in terms of actual donations and in levering those donations into organization for the elections to come. A personal anecdote: I worked for Obama's campaign quite a bit last cycle. I had donated, donated again, and then written some posts on their websites that caught the attention of someone. I got a phone call from one of their organizers here in CA who took me out for coffee, and asked if I would like to have a larger presence withing their local campaign - which I did want, and happily accepted. They did a good job of identifying someone who was both financially committed to Obama's success, and willing to put effort into articulating a good reason for why they supported him, and offered me the chance to work even harder.

It sounds funny to say - sort of a Tom Sawyer-ish 'painting the fence' scenario; I rarely if ever get excited about being offered the chance to work hard. But, in this case, it was dead on, and I know for a fact that they are doing the same thing this cycle. It pays off big time on election day.

Cycloptichorhn

0 Replies

Michigan Mischief Making...
The primary next week is "open" meaning Independents and Democrats can vote along with Republicans.
Politico reports that emails are being sent to Dems encouraging them to vote and implying that they should vote for Santorum.
Could the results be affected? Perhaps. But I don't think so.
In the 2008 Republican primary there were 870K votes cast. Turnout in contests thus far has been down. Assume a turnout of 750K. That would mean 7500 Dems would have to participate and vote for Santorum to have 1% change effect on the spread between Romney and Santorum.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Tacky, to me, from either side.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

Michigan Mischief Making...
The primary next week is "open" meaning Independents and Democrats can vote along with Republicans.
Politico reports that emails are being sent to Dems encouraging them to vote and implying that they should vote for Santorum.
Could the results be affected? Perhaps. But I don't think so.
In the 2008 Republican primary there were 870K votes cast. Turnout in contests thus far has been down. Assume a turnout of 750K. That would mean 7500 Dems would have to participate and vote for Santorum to have 1% change effect on the spread between Romney and Santorum.

I can confirm - from internal emails I've received - that a serious effort is being put in place to do exactly that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

The debate thus far is pretty damn dull. No clear winner in my mind. A couple of stumbles by Santorum: earmarks, for one. Nothing fatal.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

This harkens back to Limbaugh's Project Chaos, wherein he suggested to GOPs to get out and vote for certain Dem candidates in a series of open primaries.
It backfired a bit becasue the ultimate candidate won anyway in Nov 2008

0 Replies

From Sullivan's live-blog of the debate -

Quote:

8.50 pm. Newt calls Obama a baby-killer. Then Romney says there has never been in America an administration more opposed to religious freedom. This from a man whose great grandparents were chased out of the country on purely religious grounds.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

There was not, in my mind, a clear winner in tonight's debate. Perhaps Romney did a bit better than Santorum. Or perhaps not.
For me, the most interesting discussion started out with Santorum's comments a week or two ago about women soldiers in combat. That led to discussion about Syria and Iran and Israel. Paul, who actually did okay tonight, talked about undeclared wars that we could find ourselves involved in...again.
The others pledged support for Israel and argued for doing "something" against Syria and Iran and acknowledged that the situation in the region could lead to higher oil prices.
That is the way I read the debate. Perhaps you heard things differently. I can accept alternative interpretations.

0 Replies

Now there's a bold, intelligent, detailed plan to solve difficult problems: "let's do 'something' about Syria and Iran". Con gratulations, Republican contenders, I was sure we could count on you.

0 Replies

I watched some but not all of the debate.

I think I've said this before, but while I don't want Ron Paul to be president, I'm so glad he's in the race.

I LOVED his response to the question that went something like

CNN dude: "Why do you have ads out saying that Santorum is fake?"

Paul: "Because he is fake!"

Ha!

I didn't take notes or anything so I can't remember the other points where I thought he was good -- of course he was completely batty at other points, too.

Anyway, I thought Santorum was stronger than I expected him to be. He took on a bit on Gingrich's pedant role, with Gingrich backing him up, and the pedant thing seemed to go well when Gingrich did it. (Basically explaining to Romney like Romney was really clueless about various governmental things like how earmarks work.)

I also thought his response re: Arlen Specter was pretty good.

Of course it plays into the "government insider" thing, but I thought Romney came out of that whole exchange looking weak and discombobulated.

And really, "resolute" as his one-word description of himself? Weak. Very weak.

(Gingrich's "cheerful" cracked me up though -- I couldn't tell if it was meant to!)

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Where does all the money donated to campaigns go? What is it used on?

If most of it is used on marketing costs like TV and Internet ads, then who ends up benefiting from this flow of dollars? By any chance, do the major contributors happen to also own the media sources who are being paid to run the ads? If so, that would be a neat way for them to spend huge amounts of money without actually losing as much of it (having it flow to another person or company).

This probably doesn't relate to your graph directly, but I was just curious about who's pocket the millions of dollars of campaign donations actually ends up landing in.

1 Reply

The Winding Road To The Republican Nomination For President

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know