Skip to main content

View Diary: Q1 numbers (300 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

    You stated:

    The Q1 numbers are always the lowest-hanging fruit. Q2 numbers are better at gauging momentum. In 2003, Edwards and Kerry had huge dropoffs in Q2. Those who build a small-dollar-donor network will have an easier time maintaining that momentum.

    Q2 is a better gauge?  And then you cite the two eventual nominees as having "huge dropoffs" in Q2 as an example?  Doesn't that actually contradict your assertion that Q2 is a "better gauge"?  Sounds to me like momentum is with the Q1 winners regardless of what happens in Q2.

    Color me unconvinced.

    •  Nicely done (0+ / 0-)

      Here's the thing about fundraising numbers: It is not a winner take all proposition. Rather, there are two benchmarks to be aware of. One is the floor, below which you just can't be competitive. I'd set that at about $50m. The other is the "swamp the competition" number, which I'd set at about $120-150 million. If you can raise somewhere between those two numbers, and your competition does too, then really earned media becomes the decider as opposed to paid. Unless Hillary or Barack can get significantly north of $100 million, I'd say money won't decide the three-way race.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site