TIME Reports Obama Raised $30 Million Plus In March
Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:10:51 AM PDT
Obama supporters love to talk about delegate math. Indeed, I, for one, love Chris Bowers's delegate write ups on Open Left. I love the diaries (which I have seen here (Pocketnines), on the Field and during the Texas Primary/Caucus on Burnt Orange Report) on congressional district delegate projections. And I certainly like it when Chuck Todd talks about delegate math.
But in all my years following politics, I have to come to appreciate a different sort of math: the math of cash. In contested elections, if one candidate has a financial advantage over the other candidate that advantage can be devasting.
Tonight, TIME is reporting that Obama has raised at least $30 million and a source says that Clinton's campaign is hinting that it raised about $20 million.
In terms of ending this primary season soon rather than later, nothing is more important than a math calculation that is less frequently talked about: the cash standing of each candidate. TIME is that Obama raised more than $30 million in March; while Clinton's total is about $20 million:
Barack Obama raised more than $30 million in the month of March, a campaign official told TIME on Tuesday.
Though the official would not provide an exact number, he did say, "The number starts with a three and we are still counting. It's in the 30s."
* * *
As of Tuesday night, the Clinton campaign had not released its March totals. But one Clinton campaign adviser hinted that the New York senator's total for the month will come close to $20 million. That estimate could not be independently confirmed.
Assuming these reports are accurate, these reports do not give us all of the relevant information. For example, we do not know what portion of Obama $30 million plus or Clinton's $20 million is primary money as opposed to general election money.
Still, these fund raising numbers are not good news for Hillary. In recent days, it has been reported in Politico that Clinton has $8.7 million in unpaid debt. And the Politico article pointed out that Hillary would be broke at the end of February if she paid off her debts and paid back her loan:
If she had paid off the $8.7 million in unpaid bills she reported as debt and had not loaned her campaign $5 million, she would have been nearly $3 million in the red at the end of February.
The Politico article reported that, despite the unpaid debts, Obama at the end of February had $33 million to spend to Hillary's $11 million. Given the numbers that TIME is reporting this finanical advantage only grew larger in March.
The effect of Obama's financial power is evident in recent reports about ad buys. Recent reporting indicates that Obama is outstanding Clinton five to one in upcoming states (Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina.) Obama has spent more than $2 million in these three states to $400,000 by Clinton, who has only brought in Pennsylvania.
And the evidence in this campaign is that money matters and it matters a lot. For example, Obama was only able to outspend Clinton two to one in Ohio and he lost by ten points. However, he outspend Hillary five to one in Wisconsin and won a smashing victory. A research project in Wisconsin suggests that this difference in spending might have made a difference in the two races:
In Ohio, he outspent Clinton, but the margin wasn't as overwhelming. And both candidates were on the air for the same period of time in Ohio.
In Wisconsin, Obama went on the air almost a week earlier than Clinton. He dominated the airwaves, outspending Clinton by 5-to-1, according the Wisconsin Advertising Project.
Obama won Wisconsin by 17 points but lost Ohio by 10 points. Even more striking was how differently the same groups of voters behaved in the two Midwestern battlegrounds. Obama won white men by almost 30 points in Wisconsin, but he lost them by almost 20 in Ohio. Obama won blue-collar (non-college-educated) whites by five points in Wisconsin, but he lost them by more than 40 in Ohio.
"Hillary was outspent in Ohio, but it was 2-to-1, not 5-to-1. So that matters. There was no time when Hillary was dark in Ohio and Obama was up. So that matters. And her message was a lot more disciplined in Ohio than in Wisconsin," said UW-Madison political scientist Ken Goldstein, who oversees the ad project.
So, what does all of this suggest for the upcoming states. It looks as if Obama is going to try to replicate his success in Wisconsin in Indiana and North Carolina by going up earlier than Clinton in these states. He started ads in these two states last Friday. Indiana ad buy reported here. North Carolina ad buy reported here. Clinton, with limited funds, is going to focus her resources on Pennsylvania. However, Obama may have such a cash advantage that he may be able to outspend Clinton in Pennsylvania by a very wide margin--wider than the margin in Ohio.
So, Obama should be able to turn to cash advantage into a delegate advantage. Narrowing the loss in Pennsylvania, perhaps scoring a win in Indiana and running up the score in North Carolina.
This outlook for ads buys leave Hillary in a difficult position. The TIME article highlighted Hillary's problem:
While some inside the campaign are concerned about whether Clinton will have the funds to match Obama in radio and TV advertising buys through May, others are worried about a different horizon. One Clinton adviser wondered whether that what he called the "massive debt" was beginning to hang over not simply the campaign but Clinton's political future. How, this adviser asked, can the campaign climb out of "the debt hole if we don't win this whole thing?" Facing a Senate re-election campaign in 2012, he noted, Clinton's choice is daunting: "If you have a $10 million debt when this thing is over, she has to pay it off, and then, four years later, raise $30 to $40 million" to wage a re-election campaign.
Perhaps, in the end, Hillary's cash position will bring this matter to a swift conclusion shortly after May 6th losses in Indiana and North Carolina.
Permalink | 78 comments