Obama, Can he buy the election?

[Pector55]

...eh, maybe not.

Posted Tuesday, September 09, 2008 11:30 AM
Was Obama Right to Opt Out of Public Financing?
Andrew Romano


On the night of Sept. 16, Barack Obama will not be in Cincinnati, Ohio, or Lebanon, Va., or Grand Rapids, Mich., or any of the other swingiest regions of the swingiest swing states. Instead, the Democratic presidential nominee will start his evening at a 46,000 square-foot mansion in Beverly Hills, then proceed to the posh Beverly Wilshire hotel, where rooms start at $495 a night. Needless to say, Obama won't be prospecting for votes in the Golden State, where he currenty leads Republican rival John McCain by an insurmountable 15-point margin. He'll be mining for money.

It wasn't supposed to be like this. When Obama opted out of public financing--unlike McCain, who gladly accepted an $84.1 million check from the American taxpayers on Sept. 5--the chattering classes predicted that his efficient Web-based small-donor money machine would rake in "around or above $300 million" for the two-month general election campaign, a sum even larger than his record-shattering $272 million primary haul. But as we noted (first on July 11 and again on Aug. 19) "the real surprise" of this year's cash chase is that "it's much more competitive than anyone expected." Take July, for example. While Obama netted a massive $51 million--again clobbering McCain, who racked up $27 million--the important statistic to look at is the combined amount of cash-on-hand for each candidate and his party (i.e, how much is actually available to spend on getting the nominee elected). In this case, the totals were nearly identical: the Republicans finished the month with $96 million in the bank ($75 million for the RNC, $21 million for McCain) versus $94.3 million for the Democrats ($25.8 million for the DNC, $65.8 million for Obama). In other words, the "mighty" Obama and "measly" McCain--who raised only $120 million over the course of the entire 16-month primary campaign--were tied. So much for the punditocracy's pecuniary predictions.


Unfortunately, August isn't looking any rosier for Obama. This morning, The New York Times reported that "the campaign is struggling to meet ambitious fund-raising goals it set for the campaign and the party," collecting "in June and July far less from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s donors than originally projected" and pushing donors to give more with letters characterizing their recent efforts as "extremely anemic." Meanwhile, the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder added that "after a year of telling donors not to contribute to 527 groups, of encouraging strategists not to form them and of suggesting that outside messaging efforts would not be welcome in Obama's Democratic Party, Obama's strategists" are now "hoping that Democratic allies"--i.e., 527 groups--"will come to Obama's aid."

Why now? According to the Times, Chicago characterized its own monthy haul as the "best...yet" (think $60 million or so). That said, "a California fund-raiser familiar with the [DNC’s] August performance estimated that it raised roughly $17 million last month, a drop-off from the previous month, and finished with just $13 million in the bank"--about half of July's war chest. In terms of cold, hard cash, then, this probably means that Obama started September with around $90-$100 million in the bank. The McCain campaign, meanwhile, managed to rake in a record $47 million for its coffers and another $22 million for the party, finishing the month with more than $100 million on-hand money that it has now turned over to the RNC. Combined with McCain's fresh infusion of $84 million in public funds and the $100 million RNC fundraisers expect to raise in September and October, that would leave the GOP with about $300 million at its disposal. To keep up, Obama and Democrats have to rake in about $100 million a month from now until November 4. That's $25 million more than their best combined monthly total to date. They're going to need all the help they can get.


In truth, the problem isn't that Obama doesn't have enough dinero. He has--and will continue to have--tons, most of which he can invest at his own discretion (unlike McCain, who's only allowed to direct a small portion of the RNC's disbursements). And when Obama's primary donors cut checks for the general, he'll likely get more. Given that Chicago is bent on expanding the map--and using its own resources to do it--that's an important distinction. The problem is that--compared to his publicly-financed Republican rival--Obama may not have enough money to justify the costs of opting out. While McCain spends the two-month sprint to the finish wooing voters in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania without stopping to replenish his coffers, Obama will have to work harder than ever to keep the cash flow coming. That means more fundraisers in like the one next week in Beverly Hills (or the one with Bon Jovi last week in New Jersey) and less time on the trail.

No doubt that on Sept. 16 Obama would rather be in Ohio than Beverly Hills, listening to a working mom talk about her economic struggles instead of listening to Barbara Streisand sing. No doubt his political strategists--keenly aware of how the rest of American will interpret Streisand + mansions + Hollywood--would agree. But it isn't quite working out that way

[Shawn.L]

Democrats bad at managing money?????

noooooo, you must be mistaken

[5711-Marine]

That is the text book way to counter the McCain campaign claim he is a celebrity...

[Pector55]

That is the text book way to counter the McCain campaign claim he is a celebrity...

I agree. Imagine being on the campaign trail in Ohio, Michigan, PA, WV or Virginia. All you have to do is say, "I'm sure Obama is trying to talk to you middle-class Americans tonight as well... (picture shows Obama with Babs and the elite in the mansion.) LOL

That would make for a nice ad to run through the swing states.