Skip to main content

In this week's widespread Fun with FEC Filings, The Right's Field has a post on the burn rates of Republican candidates, and it doesn't look so good for them:


ClosingTot ContribsOperating ExpsBurn Rate
Brownback For President$806,626$1,291,024$1,030,49279.82%
Gilmore For President$90,107$174,790$113,79065.10%
Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee$11,949,735$16,077,670$6,041,02937.57%
Hunter For President$272,552$502,424$263,422 52.43%
John McCain 2008$5,180,799$13,680,081$9,589,67470.10%
Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee$524,919$639,989$114,97017.96%
Romney For President$11,863,653$20,982,788$11,325,34253.97%
Tancredo For A Secure America$575,078$1,185,536$711,01259.97%
Tommy Thompson For President$139,723$315,128$252,31280.07%

If we leave out Ron Paul (which I think we can), Giuliani has the lowest burn rate, at 37.57%.  This will be a pretty hard pace to keep up for most of the Republican candidates.

So what about the Democrats?

ClosingTot ContribsOperating ExpsBurn Rate
Biden for President$2,838,916$2,112,990$1,172,17455.5%
Hillary Clinton for President$30,974,780$26,054,302$5,059,51519.4%
Chris Dodd for President$7,482,467$4,043,757$1,313,23932.5%
John Edwards for President$10,731,881$14,029,654$3,291,63223.5%
Mike Gravel for President$498$34,720$107,737310%
Kucinich for President$163,887$358,569$194,44354.2%
Obama for America$19,192,521$25,709,105$6,554,78325.5%
Bill Richardson for President$5,022,473$6,246,382$1,217,05719.5%

If we leave out Mike Gravel (which I think we can), only Biden and Kucinich are in Republican burn-rate territory.  Even Dodd is doing considerably better than Giuliani.  Obama's burn rate is high given how much money he starts out with - it will be interesting to see if he's spending at a high rate to set up a strong infrastructure early or if he continues to outspend most other Democrats (and on what he's spending).

Overall, though, it looks like candidates from the alleged party of fiscal responsibility are not only having trouble raising money, the top Republican candidates are spending more of it than the top Democratic candidates, creating problems for them at both ends of the burn rate equation.  A detailed look at expenditures will give a more complete picture of what exactly Romney, McCain, and Giuliani are spending so much  on, but it may be related to Republicans' typically heavier reliance on highly-paid consultants (a cursory glance at McCain's disbursements seems to support that theory - it reads "consultant consultant consultant").  

Meanwhile, Democrats are socking away a good amount for when the campaign really kicks into gear.

(source for figures)

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:49 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Building Infrastructure (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kiwing, mayan, boofdah, aaraujo, Marcus Graly

    Its entirely possible the republican candidates are building infrastructure.... isnt it?

    •  It's possible, but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that would be a lot of infrastructure, and if you can't afford to build it, it's not a very efficient way to go.

      •  You have No Choice (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        heartofblue, icebergslim

        but to build infrastructure. You can't operate without it. And this cycle everything is frontend loaded so money will go fast.

        In all honesty the burnrates alone are not the numbers to be looking at because it only reflects a percentage of money raised and a lot of candidates have not raised that much. At this point to compare Biden's burnrate to Romney is not relevant because of the large gap in money raised.

        The real hard numbers to see who the players are and what they are spending to remain competitive is the Operating Expenses.

        On the Repub side you only have Romney, McCain, and Giuliani who are spending 7 figures at this point. Of those three only Romney and McCain are outspending the Dem's by a good dollar margin.

        Of the Dem's you have Obama spending more that Clinton by almost 30%! Edwards is spending about 50% of what Obama is.

        If Obama's contributions don't keep up with his accelerated spending he might get in a bit of trouble. Spending 30% more at this point without any real advertising dollars going out is something to keep an eye on.

        Romney and McCain could be in deep do-do if their return in polling numbers for dollars spent continues at this miserable pace.

        It's still early but I think burnrate is over emphasized at this early point compared to the actual dollars that the candidates are spending compared to each other.

        "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

        by talex on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:31:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, when I have a little more time (0+ / 0-)

          (and when will that be? I don't know) I want to look in more detail at their expenditures and see who's spending on what.  I've taken a peek at a few of them but nothing systematic.

          (Kucinich is spending a bizarrely high amount on web hosting and another high amount on web consulting.  I can't figure out what he's getting for all that money.)

          •  That Would Be Interesting (0+ / 0-)

            if one had the time - ha ha - I know what you mean.

            Kucinich is blowing it on the Web huh? Well given that he knows he has no chance to win maybe a relative or friend is getting Top Dollar++ to handle that for him. ;)

            Or maybe he is going through a NOLA contractor!!!

            "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

            by talex on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:51:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I can understand the startup w/Obama.. (0+ / 0-)

          Clinton and JE already had their campaign, basically, in place.  Look at what this guy did from his mid February announcement until now.  Yes, I agree, he must keep pace in the fundraising, but I think he will be OK.  I see his team is WAY more fiscally responsible than Dean's team was.

    •  I thought they already (5+ / 0-)

      HAD infrastructure. Aren't WE the ones who've been trying to build infrastructure?

      So much for their oh-so-much-better-than-ours organization.

    •  Only if (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MissLaura, frankzappatista

      the Tower of Babel counts as infrastructure.

      "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

      by ogre on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:11:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Infrastructure Schminfrastructure (0+ / 0-)

      Infrastructure is very cheap. We're talking a few thousand bucks a month per person you've hired, a few tens of thousands for computers and software and blah blah blah. The only REAL money in a presidential campaign, at least at the Clinton/Obama/Edwards level of fundraising, goes in two ways: 1) Fundraising overhead, especially direct mail; and 2) TV and other advertising. To my knowledge no one on the Dem side has spent a dime on TV, unless it's to buy time early. Only Romney has on the R side. So most of that burn has to be fundraising overhead. Which makes sense for Obama and Edwards.

    •  I would think... (0+ / 0-)

      ... that Romney actually needs to be spending at that rate, to compete with the far better known McCain and Giuliani. And if he can raise it, he may as well spend it. It's hard to figure why McCain needs to spend like that (you know, other than that nobody likes his positions).

  •  What do each of the columns represent? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oceanview, waitingforvizzini, boofdah

    I assume they are cash on hand, money raised, money spent, and burn rate... but some labels would be nice.  :D

  •  25.5 (7+ / 0-)

    is pretty low considering Edwards is at 23.5 and already has infrastructure in place.

    Same with Hillary. Her infrastructure should be in place and she has a little more money, so Obama seems right in step with her and Edwards.

  •  Good lord... (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Night Owl, ben masel, bree, boofdah, jct, AJ WI

    burn rates, quarterly earnings, government filings...

    Politics ain't local anymore it's fiscal. Perhaps we should commoditize the candidates and trade them on the CFTC.

    We could start a derivatives market and the whole deal. (If memory serves HRC has some experience in that regard—sorry, couldn’t pass that up).

  •  looks like edwards is lookin' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oceanview, boofdah, jct

    good so far

    I am aware of the fact there are people who pay attention to what I do and say, but I try to avoid customizing my behavior for them. -Ian MacKaye

    by waitingforvizzini on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:49:53 AM PDT

  •  Man! Republicans can sure spend money! n/t (6+ / 0-)

    "Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die." George W. Bush 12/7/06

    by kitebro on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:50:22 AM PDT

  •  What is the president's "burn rate" (15+ / 0-)

    of the National Treasury?

    5000%? More?

    "The only way we can win is to leave before the job is done." --George W. Bush, Greeley, Colo., Nov. 4, 2006

    by Patriot4peace on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:51:52 AM PDT

  •  By the By (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    waitingforvizzini, boofdah

    All of this focus is intriguing but may be useless-- I have a feeling Gore will enter in the fall and turn the Democratic primary on its head, thus making all this micro-analysis moot and, in retrospect, ridiculous.

  •  Are these numbers for Primary cash? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, Yoshimi, boofdah, Hairy Legs

    If so, it has little bearing on the competitiveness of Dems to Repubs. But it certainly bears on Dems vs. Dems.

    Hillary is doing surprisingly well considering the size of her bank and how much she spent on her last, uncontested senate race.

    Obama doesn't surprise me. As an insurgent candidate, he is probably spending liberally to stay at the top of the public's mind.

    Edwards burn rate seems a little high. I wondering where that money has been going (full disclosure: since Feingold took a pass, I've been leaning Edwards).

    • Blog This: News Corpse
    • The Internet's Chronicle of Media Decay.

    by KingOneEye on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:53:21 AM PDT

    •  And don't forget Obama's also RAISING a lot of $ (5+ / 0-)

      ...particularly from a greater number of low-dollar donors. That assumes that he'll retain that high number of small donors (who haven't yet maxed out their contributions) so they can again donate to his campaign when he really needs it.

      •  How many Small Donors (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        are going to max out at $2300 little on $4600?

        Not many in the $2300 category and virtually none in the $4300 category.

        I just shake my head when I hear that argument made here or on the MSM. let's face it most grassroots people cannot part with $2300.

        To put it into perspective that is saying for the next year you are going to write a check for $200 a month out of your monthly income and still have what you need to live.

        The last poll I saw here of income levels their are not many who can afford to do that.

        "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

        by talex on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:46:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's possible, over an 18-month period... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          You're right in that not many grassroots ppl can donate a lump sum of $2300 in on sitting; but over an 18-month period, especially for a focus on just one candidate, it's possible for even middle-middle-class income ppl to donate that much. My husband and I aren't millionaires, yet we donated at least that, spread out over a little more than a year and a good number of candidates for different offices, during the midterms last year.

          •  Well So Do I (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bree, boofdah, Hairy Legs

            but most people can't. We are fortunate to have enough disposable income to be able to do that.

            But that is not the point. The point was that many, not all, people here who I am sure cannot contribute $2300 use that as an argument - and so does the MSM. It just is not a valid argument. It is hype.

            "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

            by talex on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:06:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  That's a bit of a myth (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bree, Pozzo, boofdah, Hairy Legs

        I know a lot of bloggers have been promoting the idea that a campaign with a lot of low donors has the greatest potential to grow their fundraising, and superficially it makes sense. But in my experience, just as often those low donors are low because that's all they can afford. In Obama's case, he has tons and tons of young people and even students on the list. They aren't maxing out, ever.

        Look at it this way: Most political donors never even approach their max. Most are around $100 total for all candidates in a cycle. Or less. What makes anyone thing Obama's low donors are different?

        Much as we hate to admit it, percentage wise most political money comes in the form of bundled contributions at the $500 level and up. That's true for everyone, Obama included. So a campaign's ability to continue fundraising after this first quarter is more a factor of their continued "buzz" and ability to attract more bundlers into their orbit, than any room left under their low donors' max.

    •  It does bear on Dem-to-Repub (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, waitingforvizzini, jct

      competitiveness in the sense that if the Republican nominee has no money going into the general, it hurts him.

    •  Obama... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, waitingforvizzini, jct

      Had to spend his money on building an organization...unlike the candidates who had run for national office before, he had no lists (which are EXPENSIVE!), no big fancy website (which unlike Hillary or Edwards had to be started from scratch), and even had to buy all the mundane things that the others had from their previous office supplies.

      That said, all three are in VERY good positions...

    •  The burn rate is deceiving... (3+ / 0-)

        because it should be as a percentage of the monies that can be used in the primary race. Because this number can be considerable lower for Hillary because she got many large contributions. If Hillary has $20.5 contributions for the primary in the 1st quarter her burn rate would be approximately 25%. I think this is what I saw that was her available primary contributions. This puts JRE, Hillary and Obama in the 25-28% range. Very respectable for all three. I honestly did not expect Hillary's to be that low after the way her campaign burned money in the Senate race.

      Eisenhower- "We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage."

      by NC Dem on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:19:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I had the same thought, but then I remembered... (0+ / 0-)

        Hillary also transferred $10 mil from her Senate campaign that can be used in the primary.

        What she raised for the primary ($19 mil) and the transfer from her Senate campaign does come out to $30 million.

    •  Obama's also got more overhead (0+ / 0-)

      having to hire additional security for the huge crowds he's drawing

      "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Ed Abbey

      by frankzappatista on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:24:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just curious about travel costs (0+ / 0-)

      Anyone know how Clinton kept her travel costs so low?  I can't imagine she's flying Southwest to all of her events.

  •  Marathon race, not a sprint n/t (4+ / 0-)
  •  er, i am a dummy but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

       is burn rate, the rate at which the campaign uses up money?  (obvious meaning to some, i am sure, but i want to make sure ) and if you add to the equation, Repubs have deeper pockets because of their tax breaks (given by Republican powers that be), then cant they sustain that burn rate over a longer period of time.  High burn rate, no problem.  Ask republican supporters for more money.???

  •  Hmm....secret candidate Jeb Bush? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, AaronE, icebergslim

    The current crop of GOP front-runners are doing so badly, I almost wonder if they're going to trot out Jeb when it gets a bit closer to the primary.

    He would decimate this crowd, and do pretty well against the Dem candidates, I think. He's a smarter better George W. Bush, who seems to have not destroyed Florida while being governor. The conservatives even say he's done a good job.

    I have heard not a peep from him, which is good; perhaps I'm just being paranoid.

    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

    by jbeach on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:53:46 AM PDT

  •  the GOP money is waiting (6+ / 0-)

    I think the GOP candidates' fundraising problem is largely that none of their candidates look like winners.  If one emerges from the pack, or someone "electable" steps in, I expect the spigot to get turned on hard.

    What surprises me is how little money the fundie-approved candidates like Brownback and Huckabee are raising.  The GOP frontrunners are all poison for the fundies, but the fundies aren't responding by coming up with some money for acceptable and adequate candidates.  Is the Movement broken?

    Ever feel like you've been cheated?
    -Johnny Rotten

    by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:54:38 AM PDT

  •  also, the repubs are not running very hard right (0+ / 0-)

      now.  they are saving their pschological hard twisted "logic" for the summer and fall campaign of next year.  I would guess, most of the money is being spent on infra structure.  precinct work. etc

  •  Rats. I was hoping repo burn rates (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oceanview, frankzappatista

    has something to do with plans for the afterlife.

  •  With a 70% burn rate, McCain will be burned (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oceanview, Allogenes, Sean in Motion

    out before he "officially" announces!!  Love it!!!

    Joe, when are YOU going to take a walk in Baghdad?

    by Phil S 33 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:58:20 AM PDT

  •  Ron Paul (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Given the pro-war primary vote splits umpteen ways, he could pull out a win in New Hampshire. Not sure where he goes after that tho, as the field narrows his % stays flat.

    Democratic Candidate for US Senator, Wisconsin, in 2012

    Runamarchy: n., the end product of corrosion of constitutional order.

    by ben masel on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:58:47 AM PDT

  •  It makes sense that Republican candidate burn (0+ / 0-)

    more.  They don't have the volunteer staff that some of more progressive candidates have.

  •  dude, Gravel can't even afford to buy Beer! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dss, Sean in Motion, icebergslim

    498? WTF, is this his personal play thing

    Cut n Run... to Mars... Ma Bitches

    by Steven R on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:06:11 AM PDT

  •  Was McCain's Iraq photo-op paid (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    for by his campaign or by the American taxpayers?

    "Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die." George W. Bush 12/7/06

    by kitebro on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:06:36 AM PDT

  •  a high burn rate can be great (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steven R

    Every time somebody buys a Tivo, politics moves from a COH strategy to a cash-flow strategy. To the extent a candidate can inspire a scalable model that beats the few interest percentage points banked money allows, it actually makes sense to invest aggressively.

    •  Elaborate? (0+ / 0-)

      I just gave a talk that focused (in part) on TiVo's effect on political organizing, so I'd like to hear more.

      •  I'll send you a link (0+ / 0-)

        This is a concept that I've been thinking about a great deal and I'm putting together a long piece to run at the California Progress Report next week (to hopefully spark a conversation at CDP convention).

        The short answer is that it appears spending decisions are driven to a large extend by fear as everyone always remembers the race where the other side (in both primary or general) dumped a huge pile of money in at the end.

        This has created a hoarding mentality that is not necessarily the most efficient means to an end. To the extent that fundraising isn't a zero net sum game (which the presidential numbers clearly show), then any investment that achieves a return greater than 4% makes sense and will actually result in more resources available.

        I'll be framing it in terms of getting ready for the 2010 CA gubernatorial race (and Boxer's re-election). The numbers I've seen suggest DVR households should be north of 60% nationwide by then, which could easily be north of 70% in CA overall. This could mean that the most relied upon method of political communication will be unavailable when talking to 3/4 of voters.

        I've always liked the term "post-broadcast" because I think it signifies that this there is more than just a change in mediums going on, there is a full change in attitude necessary. If you can't broadcast, you need to network and I think the importance of field, organizing and distributed peer-to-peer efforts are going to have to fill the void.

        Ironically, with broadcasting collapsing in importance we have a concurrent trend with truly massive fundraising potential. You should check this out, 40% of big (non-political) advertisers planning on drastically reducing TV advertising, but do you think percentage driven political consultants are thinking the same way?

  •  after his comments (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I bet you can count out Tommy Thompson

    by aaraujo on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:06:55 AM PDT

  •  Clinton's real burn rate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is almost 25% too--she, Edwards and Obama are all within a tight range there.  The distortion is the $10M she slipped over from her Senatorial account.  It makes it LOOK good in size and in burn rate... but that's all.

    If 25% isn't sustainable, all three of them are in deep.  OTOH, the GOP candidates are in a lot deeper, if that's the case.  Even Rudy's--which looks good, by GOP standards--is 50% higher than the Democratic top tier.

    "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

    by ogre on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:10:21 AM PDT

    •  Not true (6+ / 0-)

      The 19.4% burn rate for Hillary is a product of taking her operating expenses ($5,059,515) and dividing it by total contributions ($26,054,302) which does NOT include the $10 mil transfer from her Senate account.

      $5,059,515/$26,054,302 = 19.4%

      The transfer from her Senate account IS, however, the reason that the left column of "Closing Funds" is so high. If the transfer had been factored into the burn rate, it'd be 14.0%

      "'Shit' is the tofu of cursing" --David Sedaris

      by LiberalVirginian on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:25:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I was well behind in consciousness and caffeine--I'm visiting family in Anchorage, so I'm off time zone, and stayed up too late last night, and was rudely awakened by young nephews... and am still bleary.

        Bad math when brains don't work. 5 into 25 is 20%, not 25% (sigh).

        "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

        by ogre on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:30:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  But it doesn't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Account for the $1.6mil (or so) of debt she's accumulated as oppesed to the $200K or so for Obama.

        Just because she hasn't actually cut the checks doesn't mean that money hasn't been 'burned', does it?

        •  Good Eye (0+ / 0-)

          According to Open Secrets, Hillary had $1,582,639 in debts after the first quarter.  Let's say that on March 31st (the last day of the quarter), Hillary had cut a check to cover all those debts, bringing her total operational expenses to $6,642,154.

          $6,642,154/$26,054,302 = effective burn rate of 25.5%

          That addition makes her burn rate, and all of Hillary's other numbers, remarkably similar to Obama's in the first quarter.  Only difference is in Cash on Hand, due entirely to Hillary transferring funds from her Senate account.

          "'Shit' is the tofu of cursing" --David Sedaris

          by LiberalVirginian on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:10:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Beeeeeeyuuuu-tiful numbers!! (0+ / 0-)

    "Prepare to withstand political upheaval" - D. Kyle Sampson, former Chief of Staff to Alberto Gonzales.

    by bejammin075 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:18:44 AM PDT

  •  Count those beans! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Wow, this sort of thing makes the MSM's treatment of the campaign as a horse race pale by comparison.  Too bad the Feds are cracking down on i-gambling or we could start handicapping them and taking bets.  

    Protect us from the bean-counters!

  •  +$100k's for credit card process fees (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B

    it's funny to look through the expenses, one that stuck in my eye was what the candidates had to pay the bank to process the credit card transactions.  It's in the hundreds of thousands.

    Bastards, also since I can't get behind the subscription wall I'm going over to to try and get the details.

  •  ron paul should not be left out. (0+ / 0-)

    he might just be the only candidate that will help us get our rights back.

  •  Good news and analysis. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I also have the impression that the 'Pubs are generally closer to maxing out their donor base, whereas our guys have a lot more potential for raising more.
    Anyway, give Ron Paul credit for living by his low-budget, fiscal-responsibility principles... while Gravel's numbers look like a deliberate caricature of the old stereotypical print-more-money-when-you-run-out "Liberal!"

    When civilizations clash, barbarism wins.

    by Allogenes on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:27:25 AM PDT

  •  most of the money raised last TWO weeks of March (0+ / 0-)

    if you go to they have a tool you can use to do a week by week comparison of the candidate fundraising.  Almost all of the candidates raised an overwhelming majority of the money in just the last two weeks of March, truly fascinating.

  •  Hillary has the lowest burn rate :) (0+ / 0-)

    All she does is quietly continue to impress at every turn.

    Support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative

    by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:46:25 PM PDT

    •  Not really (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bree, jacortina

      If you add her Q1 debts to operating expenses, as I pointed out above, her burn rate is pretty much the same as Obama's, 25.5%.    

      "'Shit' is the tofu of cursing" --David Sedaris

      by LiberalVirginian on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:11:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure, if you distort the #s to your favor (0+ / 0-)

        rolls eyes

        Support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative

        by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:53:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Distort? (0+ / 0-)
          So if you don't actually pay out anything and do it all 'on credit' you think that gives a burn rate of zero?

          That's ridiculous.

          •  do you REALLY think Mark Penn... (0+ / 0-)

   ever going to get paid?  C'mon, be real.

            Support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative

            by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 03:05:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's not (0+ / 0-)
              the majority of her debt. Look it up:

              And, yeah, I think she'll pay:

              Aetna Healthcare - 30,111.50 Employee Benefits
              Associated Entertainment - 21,587.00 Event Expense: Entertainment
              Cingular - 19,542.79 Telephone Service
              Classic Party Rentals - 64,076.34 Event Expense: Equipment
              Dell Marketing LP c/o Dell USA LP - 84,058.66 Office Equipment
              Iowa Democratic Party - 100,010.60 List Expense
              Telefund - 55,665.44 Phone Bank
              Wray & Co. Creative Catering - 24716.73 Event Expense: Catering/Venue

        •  I wouldn't say "my" favor... (0+ / 0-)

          As I have been a Hillary supporter for a few months now, and my commenting history bears this out.  It's just honest accounting.  Hillary and Obama were very similar in money raised from contributors, and resources spent (be they paid or on credit).  

          These are facts.  Let's move on.

          "'Shit' is the tofu of cursing" --David Sedaris

          by LiberalVirginian on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 03:05:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think any of this matters this year (0+ / 0-)

    With all the huge states going early this year, it's going to cost somewhere north of $60 million just to buy 1500 points a week in a reasonable selection of markets in all those early states (not even every market). That's not a lot of points, and is only a week. With candidates burning 25% per quarter, no one, not Hillary, not Barack, is going to have more than $100 million come "winning" time in December/January. And that's an outside, high number. Subtract out mail/phone/radio, and all the other forms of advertising, and it's doubtful anyone is going to be able to swamp the competition.

    Ironically, while adding a few more early states would have given a huge advantage to the best fundraiser, adding so many of them takes that advantage away. At this point, with CA, FL, NY, IL, NJ, and MI all in the first round, earned media wins this thing. Not paid.

  •  Hillary's Burn Rate (0+ / 0-)

    As pointed out, when you count the debt it changes significantly.  My question is why isn't she paying her bills?  Typical.  The one with the most money sitting in the bank is paying the slowest. The only candidates with significant debt are:

    Hillary:   $1,582,639
    McCain:  $1,812,637
    Romney: $2,350,000

  •  I don't think they did the stats correctly (0+ / 0-)

    When measuring burn rate you have to take it from the Primary funds only, since the general cannot be used.
    Therefore, Hillarys burn rate is much higher than it shows.

    If you take it as a percent of what she actually raised this quarter for the Primary, it's even higher (excluding her transfer).

    Obama has one of the better burn rates, especially considering how much he raised for the primary.

    "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

    by crushie on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:38:39 PM PDT

    •  It's really only significant for the Republicans (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You can come up with all sorts of interesting ratios from these figures but overall it shows a healthy situation for all the candidates.  Even for Edwards and Richardson who raised significantly less money than the other two, at least they are spending relative to their means in numbers which allow them to increase spending later on.

      The really interesting area is the Republicans.  Of the top 3, only Rudy is in good shape.  Romney raised a lot of money but he spent 117% relative to what he has in the bank right now.  And McCain is in serious trouble.  He spent last quarter 220% relative to his cash on hand only to see his poll numbers drop and to raise less than the other two candidates.  He has to pull back on his spending dramatically and Romney has to keep raising money at the same rate or better if he continues his spending pace.  Only Rudy is in decent shape but even he spent 51% relative to what he has right now, whereas all the democrat candidates are in the 25-35% area depending on how you calculate Hillary.

  •  Edwards' $400 haircuts (0+ / 0-)

    No comment:

    Edwards' haircuts cost a pretty penny
    Candidate's multiple tonsorial stylings cost over $200 a clip
    The Associated Press
    Updated: 3:08 p.m. ET April 17, 2007

    WASHINGTON - Looking pretty is costing John Edwards' presidential campaign a lot of pennies. The Democrat's campaign committee picked up the tab for two haircuts at $400 each by celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva of Beverly Hills, Calif., according to a financial report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

    FEC records show Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H., which is described on its Web site as "a unique boutique for the mind, body and face" that caters mostly to women.

    A spokeswoman for Edwards' campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

    Torrenueva - who specializes in men's haircuts - confirmed in an interview with The Associated Press that Edwards is a longtime client and friend.

    "I do cut his hair and I have cut it for quite a while," Torrenueva said. "We've been friends a long time."

    Referring to a picture of Edwards published Tuesday in The Los Angeles Times, Torrenueva said: "That's my cut." The stylist said he couldn't vouch for the source of Edwards' haircuts in other photos.

    One reason the cost of the cut was so steep even by Beverly Hills standards is that Torrenueva went to Edwards rather than the candidate coming into the stylist's salon a block off Rodeo Drive.

    "I go to him wherever convenient," Torrenueva said. He declined to identify where the cuts paid for by the campaign took place.

    Campaign records also show the former North Carolina senator's campaign paid $248 on March 1 to the Designworks Salon in Dubuque.

    According to Designworks' Web site, the salon and spa features a wide variety of beauty and health services, including massages, facials, body polishes, self tanners, and rosemary mint and Caribbean therapy body wraps.

    The salon's owners did not return a call.

    Edwards, 53, who has made alleviating poverty the central theme of candidacy, has been criticized for building a 28,000-square-foot house for $5.3 million near Chapel Hill, N.C. The complex of several buildings on 102 acres includes an indoor basketball court, an indoor pool and a handball court.

    Edwards, who was John Kerry's vice presidential runningmate in 2004, is also the subject of a YouTube spoof poking fun at his youthful good looks. The video shows the candidate combing his tresses to the dubbed-in tune of "I Feel Pretty."

    In 1993, Cristophe gave former President Clinton a $200 haircut aboard Air Force One as it sat on the tarmac at Los Angeles International Airport. Late-night comedians and columnists poked fun at the president for the expensive cut.

    Support the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative

    by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 03:52:22 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site