U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 07, 2009 04:06 PM UTC

Romanoff: 21 Days, $200,000

  • 103 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As the Denver Post reports:

The campaign for U.S. Senate candidate-come-lately Andrew Romanoff said Tuesday that it had raised more than $200,000 in the 21 days he was eligible to collect donations in the third quarter.

Romanoff needed a big start to show he’s viable, though he will have to keep up the pace to compete with the fundraising juggernaut of Sen. Michael Bennet, who has taken in $2.5 million and counting since his appointment in January, analysts say.

Romanoff fundraisers collected cash from more than 1,500 individuals, said spokeswoman Joelle Martinez, using that figure to bolster Romanoff’s image as the race’s grassroots candidate…

$200,000 divided by 21 days equals $9,523 per day. Given the reduced amount of time Andrew Romanoff had to raise funds compared to opponent Michael Bennet, the per-day number is the best indicator available for how Romanoff is matching up so far. Extrapolating that per-day figure across 90 days, or one whole quarter of fundraising, $9,523 a day would total just over $857,000.

Of course extrapolated money isn’t real, and Romanoff’s early fundraising was the low-hanging fruit. We expect Bennet will report more than a million dollars for the third consecutive quarter, so will Romanoff’s curved total be enough to stay viable? This brief fundraising quarter was a free pass for Romanoff, so to speak. Now the real work begins; what he raises in Q4 will say a lot about whether he can really win a primary against Bennet. Ultimately, this brief report doesn’t tell us much. It isn’t high enough to get overly excited, but it isn’t low enough to worry about, either.

Tweet
Share

Comments

103 thoughts on “Romanoff: 21 Days, $200,000”

  1. Given about $150k came in on ActBlue before the end of the quarter, I expected Andrew to easily clear a quarter million when you added in the mailed checks. But the campaign’s numbers mean that around $50k, maybe a little less, came in the mail.

    Beating the bushes with email blasts will eventually (and relatively quickly) start to suffer diminishing returns. I wonder what will replace it.  

        1. Interesting to see your awaiting a long 6-8 months of fundraising.  

          I would have expected the Senator to push for early face to face events.  These could showcase his communication and leadership skills.  Being millions ahead, he could shut down Andrew early…you know get him off his game plan.

          2. I mean, if Romanoff stays at 200 per month, he will eventually quit the race for lack of funds and personnel.  If he can get 300k per month, he is barely a concern, but might still not warrant much notice.  Why give Romanoff any attention by actually debating him?  Rather, ignore him as long as possible, and perhaps he will squander himself, or make a big mistake, etc.

        2. are having a debate, or at least a joint appearance, in November. Penry and Maes have been showing up at a lot of them for a while, but McInnis says he’ll finally appear on stage with the others next month.

          But MOTR is right, there’s no reason for Bennet to want to debate early.

    2. Ask Obama about on-line fundraising.  You could ask Ron Paul too.  Are you kidding me?  With young Mr. Romanoff drawing a younger crowd, and the short time frame, I am stunned more of it wasn’t on-line.

    3.    I don’t care if he raised it at a bake sale.  As long as it is legal, it’s a nice take for 21 days.

        Looks like Michael Bennet is going to have to hit up his buddies in financial services industry for more $$$.

      2. By that measure, he’s pacing $300k a month. Not enough to run a good US Senate campaign.

        I’m too tired/lazy to look it up- I bet Udall raised north of 15mm

    1. He had all of September to pluck the low-hanging fruit. If he’s already being carried by low to mid-level online donors, I wonder if there’s as much money hanging out there as you think.  

  3. Not a good showing for a newly announced US Senate candidate. $200,000 in the FIRST 21 days of his campaign is not a good sign. It should be easier to pull money at the initial stage of a campaign through existing supporters who are contributing for their first time. Extrapolating a daily average and then using this to estimate a quarter performance is definitely flawed. All days in a quarter are not equal. Any candidate can tell you that. The contributions taken in during the last two, three, even four weeks of a quarter tend to massively outweigh those beforehand. Couple this with the Romanoff campaign kick-off factor, and i’d be worried if I were team Romanoff.  

      1. feel free to use opensecrets or the FEC site to do your own research. I think the logic is pretty obvious. Of course, there are exceptions. Candidacies that catch fire later on in an election cycle, allowing a candidate to pull in more money. This tends to happen in primaries where candidates are competing for an open seat. Or when there is HUGE dissatisfaction with the sitting elected official. A large argument behind Romanoff’s Senate run is that he already has massive support around the state. So, his numbers should show that and these don’t. They show that he has modest support at best. That isn’t going to get him over the hill in facing a sitting Senator with a large fundraising advantage to begin with and probably going forward.  

        1. I was asking for backup data. Let me try that method…. I think these numbers are the best for any candidate ever. Now go do some research if you don’t believe. Gee… That’s easy!

          1. I rooted my statement in a logical premise that most pols should be able to understand. It is akin to me stating that it tends to snow more in winter. Would I need to map out weather patterns for you to accept that logic? I’m glad you through out some ridic statement without any reasoning to back it up though. B/C that is obv. exactly what I did.  

            1. So very obvious. If it was so obvious, you wouldn’t be so upset, you would post a factoid or two.

              The simple fact is that there aren’t many comparisons. Name another Democratic Senate challenger that is going against an appointed Senator and filed with less than a month to go in a fundraising quarter.

              I think the 4th quarter results will be the first real test. I still expect Bennet to outraise Andrew based on his incumbent status, so the pressure will be on Andrew to at least turn in a decent number.

              (btw… The snowiest months in Denver are March, November and April – none of which are in winter.)

              1. B/c I’m pretty sure I mentioned a season and also used the word ‘tends’. Doesn’t matter whether he is running against a sitting Senator or another challenger. The campaign finance rule of increased contributions during the final weeks of a quarter still apply. How do you not get that? Does it not make sense that campaigns ramp up fundraising efforts to collect contributions near the end of the quarter in order to meet their goal for the reporting period?? Does it not make sense that a candidate’s initial fundraising quarter or period or whatever reflect low hanging fruit contributions? That the particular candidate has drawn from their existing support that has not contributed at all since the campaign just got underway?? Really, please take this and draw yourself a diagram b/c this conversation is exhausting.  

                1. I didn’t mean to upset you so much. Relax, calm down. I was half being a smart ass, and half showing that something so obvious could be still be up to interpretation.

                  It all started just asking for some comparison numbers. But hey, that’s OK. And do you really think it doesn’t matter that he is running against an incumbent?

                  As “The Scorecard” says at Politico:

                  It’s a solid start, but he’ll need to pick up the pace to compete financially with the sitting senator.

        2. as to his status and are waiting for lots of factors to set themselves — the economy, the price of gas, the other donors, the health care bill, and so on.  Summer just ended, Autumn is here, people will be thinking about their end of year spending now, and determining how much to give and to what.  

          This will be a very important quarter for all the pols looking at primaries next year

      2. raised $330,000 in the second quarter. Ryan Frazier raised $140,000 in that quarter, though his was an “exploratory committee” until the third quarter.

      3. BY my calculations, Bennet raised $18,478.93 per day in his first quarter.  Jan. 14th to Mar. 31st = 76 days.  1,404,399 raised/76 days = 18,478.93.  You asked.

    2. If he hits the phones daily and gets serious about nailing down contributions, we may see a real money race here. I think we’ll have a much clearer picture after the next quarter but I’m amazed anyone is scoffing at $200,000 in 21 days.

      1. I guarantee that he has been hitting the phones. I don’t understand the thinking to the contrary. How would he have not been doing call time during the last three weeks? His only job right now is being a candidate. Also, a large chunck of his time leading up to his announcement was spent having coffee and phone chats with movers and shakers in the party and around Colorado. So…

        1. And I’m asking you in all seriousness–how do you know? Some candidates (and oh man, I can’t tell you how many names come to mind) just hate phoning for dollars and refuse to follow a daily regiment of phonebanking. Maybe he’s one of those folks. Or maybe this initial amount raised is primarily from email blasts and the meet and greets. How do we really know since none of us work on his campaign?

          And yes, $200 grand is a drop in the bucket for a hotly contested Senate race but he has only been in for 21 days.

          Again, I think we will have a much clearer picture of both of these candidates after next quarter’s numbers come in but I would expect Romanoff’s to be outstanding, considering Bennet has an actual job while Romanoff’s only job for the next 13 months is being a candidate.

          1. It was a response to comments being thrown out there like “once he hits the phone daily and gets serious about nailing down contributions, we may see a real money race here.” So, its okay to assume that he hasn’t really been doing some hardcore phone time rather than the opposite?

            “Again, I think we will have a much clearer picture of both of these candidates after next quarter’s numbers come in but I would expect Romanoff’s to be outstanding, considering Bennet has an actual job while Romanoff’s only job for the next 13 months is being a candidate”–How is this a departure from Romanoff’s first 21 days? Was he holding some office I didn’t know about? My argument was exactly this. That he has only had to worry about being a candidate during the past three weeks. So, how would he have not been hitting the phone during that time and doing, you know, candidate type ‘things’ i.e. fundraising and building support through phone calls and physically meeting folks.  

          2. but have received a ton of e-mails from various sources promoting Romanoff’s campaign and asking for donations.  Believe he will be viable, he will stay in and compete through the primary which he will lose.  

          3. He knows how to campaign.

            He’s not stupid.

            He is trying to project an aura of winnability.

            He’s doing everything he can to raise money. INcluding working the phones.

            If he’s still in it at the end of the next quarter, I’d expect he starts hitting a million a month +. If not- he should get out.

          4. the first five days on the phone, lots of folks were unsure he was serious about running.  Some will not give until the first month or two are under the bridge and they know the candi is still in the race.  So, out of 21 days only 14 or so are ‘regular campaign’ and the first 7 are ‘opening salvos’ etc.

            1. when you compare them with Norton’s who declared around the same time. $200,00 plus is respectable but by no means impressive when compared with the half million she pulled down.

              Like many others here that have worked on campaigns have pointed out, he should have picked off the low lying fruit in his first 21 days (which sort of goes against your theory).

              Still, that said, I do think it’s the next quarter that tells the true story–let’s say best case scenario is your theory–if we go with that, then next quarter I expect him to post between $1.5 and $3 million…a sum he absolutely has to come up with if he wants to remain viable in this race.  

              How much did Udall raise for his? $15 million, I think? Romanoff has to catch up or there will be rising pressure from even his own supporters to walk away and get behind Bennet. This race is bigger and more important than one man and his ego and Romanoff, I’m certain, would agree.

      2. Considering it was up for only two weeks (and it started slow). Their last 72 hours was really good.

        But I’m very surprised he didn’t bring more than $50k into the PO box.  

        1. picture of his campaign. After all, his ONLY job for the next 13 months is to run for office so his fundraising numbers should be through the roof once he has the opportunity to raise dollars for the entire quarter instead of just 21 days.

            1. I’d actually expect more than that, quite honestly. His supporters on this thread have mentioned that once he hits the phones, he’s going to post some serious $$$ amounts and since this is his only job for the time being, I’d honestly expect at least $1 million and, at a minimum. He has no other real tasks this early in the primary game and if he wants to be a viable candidate, he has to catch up with Bennet’s huge financial advantage.

              If he’s already picked off the low lying fruit (friends, hard core supporters, family, fellow politicos), then it’s time for cold calling and raising the big dollars.

  4. I’m guessing that Andrew probably didn’t get a chance to really start hitting the phones until the last week of September. He will now be able to hit the phones hard. The $200,000+ will show the people that he is calling that he is a legitimate contender and should make it a bit easier.

    I think the number of people donating (more than 1,500) is the more impressive number. I believe I got an email from the Bennet campaign the last week of September mentioning their goal was to have 1,000 individuals donate for the entire quarter.

  5. Most of the fundraising in a quarter happens in the last month. If you’re going to compare per-day numbers then you have to do so for the last three weeks of all the candidates’ reporting period.

  6. One word to describe Speaker Romanoff’s fundraising totals – Pathetic.  He raised $60,000 in the last day but to be taken seriously by anyone he needs to do a whole lot better.  Spare the excuses it was a very weak showing by someone who brags of an e-mail list of 70,000.

    1. Especially in a race where you need to raise $10 million, this is a really weak total for a first report. Your first report has all of the easy money and should be one of your highest totals. Really poor showing here.

  7. This fundraising total is stunning.  It shows Romanoff is definitely a contender.  His arrow in the Big Line should be going up, for sure.  Coloradopols, please change it.  Thanks.

    2. Very respectable showing, agreed. But stunning? Please. With his “awesome” name recognition and him being the “people’s choice” and all, I expected far more from the low hanging fruit that falls into one of those two categories. Then again, I’ve noticed that you do have a love for overstatement, Paul.  

      1. No challenger could ever have done better – ever! It’s an astonishing performance, one showing that Romanoff is truly the people’s choice!

        Frankly, I think a Bennet withdrawal is a matter of days, if not in fact hours.

        /snark

      2. I would like to see the numbers for Bennet’s last 3 week to see how Romanoff’s fundraising has impacted Bennet’s, especially in Colorado.  I bet there’s a negative correlation.

    3. Um, no. Sorry.

      Look, this is a respectable amount of money to raise for three weeks, but let’s not forget that Romanoff had been considering this race for MONTHS. Too often people talk about Romanoff like he just up and decided to run four weeks ago, as though he hadn’t been pondering the idea every day for the last six months. He should have long had a list outlining every piece of low-hanging fruit, and he did well to pluck that. But no rational observer read that number and said, “WOW! Amazing!” Or, as you said, “stunning.”  

    4. Given that most of the big campaign spending has to occur well before November- I’d estimate 60%+ spent not later than Aug – and the total is going to be north of $15million, where’s he going to get the other 8.7million before June?

      He needs $1million/mo.

  8. That will factor into Bennet’s take, I expect to see lots of new national donors for Bennet. I predict he will easily top his last two quarters and stun the Romanoff campaign.

    But I also predicted that Andrew would bail out of the race before it became a race, so don’t make any bets on my tips.

  9. That is not in question.

    The message and boots on the ground will be very influential. He has a number of State House reps behind him.

    The Bennet campaign is organizing now on a county basis as well. Sen Bennet has heavy endorsements from statewide elected officials.

    I believe that Sen.Bennet has the best chance to be an effective representative with ties to the leadership to represetn Colorado concerns. . His committee appointments speak looud and clear.  

    1. If Senator Bennet stays in office and keeps his appointments in the next congress, yes he could be very influential. However, it seems quite likely that he will instead quit the job of Senator at or before the end of his first full term when he is offered a plum in the private sector or elsewhere in the Federal or State government. And having the influence is not the same as being able to use it effectively. He has not been in office long enough to tell one way or the other, but right now he’s just been given a great list of committee appointments, there is no indication that he worked to get them or knows how to make them work for Colorado.

      I also think that Bennet is settling for second best. He is not and will not be a bad Senator, but he has not potential to be a great Senator. Former Speaker Romanoff has that potential. If elected and reelected by the voters he’ll stay in office long enough to be one of those important names in the Senate. And given his experience he’ll be able to effectively use the influence he has as a Junior Senator from his first day in office.

      It is a question of long term investment vs. immediate gratification.

      2. Romanoff will be a much better representative for the people of Colorado.  He’s dedicated and cares.  

        What I like most about this is that it sets a great example for other incumbents to see that if you don’t tow the progressive line you’re out.  We’re fed up with politics of the past we need real change.  

        Romanoff you rock! This is a great showing for your first month of fund raising.

        2. at this pace, you can raise a while million dollars by the end of the year!

          Gotta be a personal record.  

          Oh wait- we’re talking about a US Senate race that should budget $15million+.

      3. If Sen Bennet wanted a big paying private job then he wouldn’t be Senator. He has his own money. He cares about the people of our state. This has to be the most flimsy attack that I’ve seen It doesn’t fly.

      4. Romanoff might be good, or he might not.  None of the things you say there gives an actual reason to believe he will be a good senator, and nothing suggests he would be any better than Bennett.  What you need here are reasons, rather than schemes

  10. COH: Cash on Hand. More than how much he raised, more important is how much he’s got in the bank. It won’t do him much good to have $200K if he’s already spent, say, $150K.  

  11. isn’t particularly realistic. My guess is that the funding graph looks like a U, with the vast majority of money raised right after he kicked off, a trough, then another spike right at the end of the quarter (where the remainder was raised).

    Just a hunch.  

  12. I think both Bennet and Romanoff are highly qualified and capable people.  It is becoming apparent, however, that Romanoff cannot keep up with Bennet’s fundraising juggernaut.  $200K is a weak showing for a quarter in which Romanoff picked off the “low hanging fruit” — the donors who were ready to write Romanoff a check the moment he announced.  Romanoff’s financial challenges will snowball, as prospective donors see him falling further and further behind Bennet in raising dollars.  Don’t lose sight of the fact that Romanoff never ran a difficult race in his life, or had to raise a significant amount of cash.  These types of challenges are new to him.  In contrast, Bennet has a Rolodex full of names of potential major contributors.  Through his family ties, Bennet knows the D.C. establishment types.

    In addition, Romanoff still has yet to articulate a convincing reason why voters should support him over Bennet, who is doing a decent job in D.C.  Simply saying, “I always wanted to be in the Senate,” will not convince enough voters to reject Bennet in the primary, although Romanoff will likely win top line.  And if Romanoff were to go negative against Bennet, he would lose the supporters who appreciate his positive outlook on politics.

    If Bennet is smart, he won’t bother with the caucuses and will petition on, just like Udall did when Udall beat Nichols in 1998.

    This race will be easier for Bennet to win than seemed at first.

    1. Exactly. Romanoff will go the way of Mike Miles though for different reasons (the convincing reason problem only one among many), at least as far as this senate race is concerned.  

      1. The problem with the hypothesis that Romanoff is like Mike Miles is that our esteemed former Speaker has both legislative experience and campaign experience on his resume. He is not an earnest, but out of step with Colorado voters, art teacher who thinks he can go from that to Senator on the basis of carrying water for the party years before.

        Secondly Romanoff does have a compelling case to make as the better choice for the Democratic Party and for Coloradans even without significant policy differences.

        Senator Bennet is a fine man and will do a decent job as Senator should he win the primary. But he has no potential to be a great Senator, rather than just an adequate one. He was the wrong choice like Taft was the wrong choice for President. It is not that he is a bad person, has the wrong positions, or the like, but that he is not the right man for the job of Senator. He is highly unlikely to stick with the job long enough to become consequential and he does not have the experience to be highly influential as a one term wonder.

        Former Speaker Romanoff has a history of legislative accomplishment and helped lead Democrats to victory in 2004 when it was a gloomy year for Democrats nationally. Given his commitment and passion to the legislative process he is likely to stay in the Senate as long as the voters keep reelecting him instead of seeking greener pastures after one term or jumping at some other plum when it is offered to him. And though whatever changes the Senate goes through he’ll be able to work with the party in power given his temperament.

        In the general election he is the safer choice for Democrats because he’ll bring the passion and eloquence necessary to defeat the Republican nominee rather than just solely relying upon having enough money. I think you will be pleasantly surprised by his fund raising abilities once this race really gets started. I think there is a better than even chance that this is going to end up looking somewhat like Obama vs. Clinton in the coming months with Romanoff playing the part of the grassroots inspiring candidate who takes out the front runner.

        I could be wrong, of course. Being a Democrat is about being willing to admit it when reality contradicts you. And if so then I will happily vote for Bennet when the time comes in the general election. But it is far too soon to start comparing our esteemed former Speaker to passionate, but misguided, liberal candidates.  

          2. the equivalent of Mike Miles.  Simply said that, like Mike Miles, he will lose. Even stipulated it would be for quite different reasons.  The only comparison is the appeal to the grassroots, though in Mile’s case, it made sense to see him as the far more progressive choice where in Romanoff’s case it does not. Otherwise I completely agree that the differences are vast, except as to the likely outcome: Romanoff will also lose.

          1. If you want to defined party insider as someone who’s worked their way up through the political hierarchy proving their ability and gaining skills rather than being a millionaire investment manager who’s friends with the right politicians to get appointed to a job, then yes, I’ll agree with your statement. Yes a ‘party insider’ such as someone like Sen. Bernie Sanders who worked his way up from local elections is going to be a better senator than an ‘party outsider’ like Sen. David K. Karnes (R-NE) who was an unexpected appointment due to his political inexperience and lost to his Democratic opponent in the general election despite being better funded and in a state that tilts Republican.

        4. No?  

          Sen. Bennet is simply more electable statewide than is AR.  You may not like it, but it’s true.  And that is why, in fact, AR has not made a statewide run prior to attempting this one.  

          I hope that AR will suddenly remember all the times he preached party loyalty and act on it; perhaps the fundraising numbers will be the prod he needs.  

          1. On what basis is Sen. Bennet more electable statewide? Is he an electrifying speaker? Does he have a compelling personal story? Is he a great campaigner? Has he ever won any office in a contested election anywhere?

    2. I don’t know about other donors, but the reason I only gave $50 to Romanoff this last quarter was because that was all I had in the budget. He’ll get more from me and if he is our party’s nominee I’ll commit to much more in the general election. But I’ve yet to really start prodding my friends into donating.

      Certainly if the next quarter ends and Romanoff is still behind on money and message I would agree with your assessment, but at this point I think it is a little premature to count Romanoff out.

      1. Unlike your other wildly speculative and unsubstantiated comment in this thread, this one is actually based in reality–it is too early to tell.

        The next quarter is going to give us a good idea if Romanoff should stay in the primary because he can raise a $1 million plus or pack it in and call it a day. The numbers will be a large factor in that conversation.  

  13. Does anyone know or have a good guess as to how much money was raised last quarter by:

    Jane Norton

    Ken Buck

    Ryan Frazier

    Josh Penry

    Scooter McInnis

    Norton had a similar amount of time to raise money and it would be interesting to see what she reports

      2.    Romo supported H.R.C. in her extremely unsuccessful campaign last year in the Colorado caucuses.  

          H.R.C. obviously can’t get involved in this race for a couple of good reasons, but I’m wondering whether her husband might. He just put himself in the middle of the California gubernatorial primary by endorsing Gavin Newsome.  

          Then again Bill has hated Jerry Brown since the two of them ran against one another in ’92, so that was probably as much a motive as Newsome’s being a co-chair for Hillary’s campaign last year.

        1. between Clinton and Jerry Brown runs a lot deeper than anything involving the Clintons and Romanoff/Bennet. If I remember correctly, didn’t Clinton get in one of his best pouty rejoinders during a debate when Brown raised a question that impugned Hillary’s honor?

          Besides, there’s a big difference between being a Friend of Hillary’s in one of the 50 states and having John McCain personally put his network at your disposal … just sayin’.

  14. Will all the Romanoff apologists still call his total “stunning” compared with Norton’s $505,547, raised in just 16 days — five fewer days than Romanoff had to post his sum?

    http://www.denverpost.com/brea…

    This is the big leagues, folks. It’s gonna take more than a bunch of county dinners and spending “crumbs” to keep this seat.

    1. After reading this ENTIRE thread, I have to ask: Is it really ONLY about the money?

      If one were to consider only the input here, one would think that dollars = votes. I know how important it is, but I still think that money only spreads the message. If the message is bullshit, voters won’t buy it. There can be a backlash if the money is WAY lop-sided. You know, the old “buying the seat” issue.

      I am confident someone here will point out my ignorance, but I believe there have been cases when the person who raised less money won the election.

      1. The amount of money you raise shows how much support you have, and it shows how confident other people are that you can win. Most big donors don’t write checks solely because they like the candidate or their stance on the issues. Donors give money to the people that they think can win.

        At this point in the race, money raised is all anyone can really gauge with real accuracy.

        You don’t have to be the top spender to win an election, but you can’t be outspent 2-to-1 and expect to have a reasonable chance. Most voters don’t really pay much attention to either candidate, so if you can’t play big on TV, you’re dead.

        1. Primary electorate turnout is incredibly unpredictable, especially in an off-year. Polling will be useless until right before election day, if even then. The dollar/donor count is the only solid predictor.

          1. but do you think the relative wealth of a candidates supporters makes a practical difference? The common knowledge (I love using oxymorons) is that the former Speaker is the darling of the rank and file.

            Speaking as a member of that group, I am working very hard to avoid completely depleting my savings. I will eventually give him a couple of hundred bucks or so, but not until I think he needs it and I can really afford it, which isn’t now. How solid do you consider fundraising this early to be, given the current economic picture?

            I understand the focus on early fundraising, but I would point out only the danger in relying on conventional wisdom and past trends. Things are changing.

            1. to put together a group of small donors who can donate again and again. But I have to ask you, when you list the circumstances when you’ll donate more to your favored candidate — you’ll also determine whether he’s got a chance in hell of prevailing, right? That’s mainly what these early fundraising totals tell: the collective wisdom of the kind of folks who donate in an off year tells us who they think will win. Of course, the bottom line matters too, those with more money can raise more (fundraising is expensive) and have more flexibility campaigning.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

72 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!