The January fundraising reports have been filed with the FEC, and here’s how our four remaining candidates fared (in order of financial strength, determined by cash on hand less debts owed):
| 2012 January Monthly Fundraising Leaderboard | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Candidate | Raised For Primaries | Other Revenue | Cash on Hand | Debt |
| 1 | Romney | $6.54 million | — | $7.68 million | — |
| 2 | Paul | $4.48 million | — | $1.64 million | — |
| 3 | Santorum | $4.51 million | — | $1.47 million | $0.96 million |
| 4 | Gingrich | $5.59 million | — | $1.79 million | $1.73 million |
At the end of February, Romney remains in a class all his own when it comes to fundraising. His $2 million advantage in one month would equal a $6 million advantage over the course of a quarter. And his cash on hand totals put him in the strongest position by far moving forward. Santorum and Gingrich, meanwhile, have each added to their debt in what should have been one of the strongest months for their campaigns. This illustrates the massive fundraising advantage Romney jumped out to early on – and how having all that cash on hand comes in quite handy when it comes down to crunch time.
February 21st, 2012 at 8:42 am
Take a good look at how Romney manages resources. Notice the zero debt and the significant cash on hand….
Wouldn’t it be nice if America was the same way?
February 21st, 2012 at 8:44 am
Mom,
“Take a good look at how Romney manages resources.”
That’s all well and good, but historically Mitt spends significantly more per vote than competitive rivals. I don’t know that 40% more fundraising over Santorum is going to get it done.
February 21st, 2012 at 8:45 am
How will any other candidate compete in ten states on Super Tuesday with just $1 million cash on hand? Answer: they can’t. Add in $3 or $4 million they will raise in February, and they still don’t come close to matching what Romney already has in cash on hand.
February 21st, 2012 at 8:46 am
There is also talk about Romney’s well starting to run dry with big donors (who make up the overwhelming majority of his fundraising) as many of them have hit their legal maximum contributions.
So there is also the difference in “potential and kinetic energy” among the candidates.
February 21st, 2012 at 8:48 am
3
Bingo.
February 21st, 2012 at 8:49 am
Two things stick out. One, Mitt still has the big lead on money to spend. Two, Gingrich’s debts almost equals his assets. I think we are seeing the Newt endgame.
February 21st, 2012 at 8:49 am
Matt C,
“How will any other candidate compete in ten states on Super Tuesday with just $1 million cash on hand? Answer: they can’t”
Prior to this year, I’d have agreed with you, and you may well be right still, but this cycle is showing in even starker ways a trend that started last cycle- money doesn’t matter as much as it used to.
And really, this makes sense, considering how internet and social media have lessened (if not swamped) the impact of paid media, and how “earned media” is easier to come by, with 24 hour news, and debates every 3 days.
February 21st, 2012 at 8:52 am
MWS- The talk about Romney’s “well running dry” is without any facts. I read an article that said that too but there was nothing that backed that up. They basically said the same thing about his fundraising in the 3rd and 4th quarter, saying that Romney couldn’t continue to raise this kind of money because “he has already maxed out his big donors”.
The truth is that there is a broad base of support among business owners, Mormons, folks in New Hampshire/Michigan/Utah, and elsewhere that are ready to give to Romney. I think his fundraising will accelerate once he wins Arizona and Michigan.
February 21st, 2012 at 8:52 am
MWS,
Back to the original point. Look at how Romney manages resources…
It’s not a swipe to spend more per vote when you’ve got it to spend.
It’s not a virtue to spend less per vote because you couldn’t raise it in the first place.
Obama spent more than they all and he’s in the White House. So while you’re over there feeling clever about snarky fictional brownie points over who spent what per vote, Obama topped that contest and he is sitting in the Oval Office.
Santorum doesn’t have the resources to manage, let alone go for the long haul. Romney worked long and hard for his resources and fund-raising and is in great shape. Says something.
February 21st, 2012 at 8:53 am
Matt,
“Historically”? I know he certainly spent more in 2008 per vote than his rivals, but Mitt is famous for not repeating mistakes.
For example, if memory serves, didn’t he drop something like $10M on Ames in 2007? This time around, he didn’t even bother with it.
February 21st, 2012 at 8:54 am
I’ve noticed the Obama vs. Romney/Santorum numbers have improved on Gallup and Rasmussen. The campaign has been quiet over the past week. Talking less closes the gap, talking more expands Obama’s lead. Is there something else going on out there?
February 21st, 2012 at 8:58 am
It’s interesting that when things are looking good for Romney on the momentum front and in the polls, the Romney-trashers decide to switch modes and start dumping on Romney’s financial state.
Keep grasping, ankle-biters.
February 21st, 2012 at 8:58 am
Remember in 2004 when John Kerry ended up with something like $17M at the end of the campaign? More than a few Democrats were upset that in a close election, he didn’t spend what he had.
The ideal situation is to spend what you take in. Don’t leave any money on the table. So if Mitt is raising more money than others, he should be spending more money than others.
February 21st, 2012 at 8:59 am
Nate Silver@fivethirtyeightReply – tweet
So in January, Romney spent $12M more than he brought in and wound up with $8M left
who is touting Romney’s amazing money management? at this rate he’ll be bankrupt by the end of the month
February 21st, 2012 at 9:00 am
and honestly, who wants to donate to some guy with a quarter of a billion in the bank? Romney needs to start writting checks
February 21st, 2012 at 9:00 am
Really, what does money buy?
Consultants, staff, printed material, and paid ads.
What has happened to the significance of each over the last 2 cycles?
One could argue that consultants are more important than ever, with the speed and breadth with which news spreads, and the importance of messaging within the new media. On the other hand, one could argue that since the candidates are more exposed- almost “naked” if you will- being before the cameras and news, and having every word and thought and interaction recorded, that the consultants are less important, since they can’t manufacture and control an image as easily, and the candidate is more important.
I would say staff- if we’re talking about the entire GOTV effort- is probably a bit less necessary, as far as sheer manpower needed. Again, new media has lessened (though obviously not eliminated) the significance of phone banks.
I don’ think there is any question that printed material and paid ads are not nearly as significant as they used to be, even in 2004. Virtually every voter in America has internet access, and if he desires, can go to the ad that is the candidates’ website, 24/7. Voters are also communicating with each other directly, on a larger scale, through Facebook and blogs like this. We aren’t 100 million islands watching TV anymore. Add in the ubiquitous news coverage, and the paid ads are overwhelmed.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:03 am
marK,
“I know he certainly spent more in 2008 per vote than his rivals, but Mitt is famous for not repeating mistakes.”
It’s not so much a “mistake” as a necessity, and using the resources he has. I’m quite confident that of the four remaining candidates, he has spent the most per vote this cycle as well.
My point is that we shouldn’t expect 40% more fundraising than Santorum to translate into anything like 40% more votes than Santorum.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:05 am
We Ask America Arizona:
Romney – 37%
Santorum – 27%
Gingrich – 15%
Paul – 8%
Undecided – 13%
http://weaskamerica.com/2012/02/21/az-romney-for-now/
February 21st, 2012 at 9:07 am
Insider Advantage Georgia (!!!)
Gingrich – 26%
Romney – 24%
Santorum – 23%
Paul – 12%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/InsiderAdvantage_GA_0220.pdf
February 21st, 2012 at 9:09 am
I’m not suggesting that paid ads don’t matter. Clearly, they do. But I am suggesting they are much less significant than they were in the of 3 news anchors and 30 second commercials being the only means of communication.
Money is one factor within increasingly complex metrics used to assess a candidate’s relative strength.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:09 am
19 – Wow.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:10 am
I’d like to see how much free advertising Santorum and Gingrich have gotten from Fox. They are on one of the shows virtually every night.
I’d also be curious to see how much the Super PACs have raised. I suspect the amount Romney’s PAC has raised would be eye popping.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:11 am
In a similar vein, I think media bias is less significant in its impact than it used to be, when a relative handful of people were effectively the gatekeepers of information and image.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:12 am
Boomer,
I saw a news headline that the SuperPacs have, or are set to soon, outpace the formal campaigns in fundraising. The link didn’t work though. It is an AP story.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:12 am
Mitt had an astonishing burn rate in January. He spent nearly 20 million. I hope a lot of that was ground-laying for future contests because, if not, then he’s in serious trouble.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:15 am
Boomer,
“The super PACs — Mitt Romney-leaning Restore Our Future and Newt Gingrich-supportive Winning Our Future — raised a combined $17 million last month.”
There’s your answer, at least for January.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/campaigns/campaigns-super-pacs-to-release-january-financials-revealing-donors-around-key-primaries/2012/02/20/gIQAdIZLPR_story.html
February 21st, 2012 at 9:17 am
So what would you suggest, Killjoy? That Mitt sit on that mound of gold like some mythological dragon, and not spend it?
If I donated to a candidate, I would expect them to spend it.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:18 am
23.
Matt- I’m not so sure. I think the media tends to be very self-reinforcing to lots of people. Fox, Rush, True Conservative blogs, etc., have been preaching the not Romney since day 1 of this campaign in increasingly shrill tones and look where we are now, Romney vs the last not Romney standing, Santorum. I defy anyone here to make the case that Santorum was the True Conservative choice all along instead of the default choice for those who have bought into the anybody but Romney mantra.
Santorum is a singularly unimpressive ex-Senator with a very mixed record. He was polling at the bottom for months and only got his rise when everyone else had been tried and rejected.
If Romney had the support of all the rightwing media this race would look much different. I think it would have been over after Florida.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:22 am
#27 no… what I am pointing out is that if Mitt spent 12 million more than he took in in Janurary.. and only has 8 million left… he would be 4 million in the whole by the end of this month if he kept spending at that rate
February 21st, 2012 at 9:24 am
Boomer,
But the sources of information are much more diverse and decentralized than before. And while it’s true that many “True Conservative” sources have it in for Mitt, it would be easy enough for a voter to find pro-Mitt sources of information on the Web as well.
If you’re a voter in 1988, and you’re skeptical of what Dan Rather and George Bush are saying about Pete du Pont, where do you go? Unless there is info in the library among periodicals they happen to keep, or the du Pont campaign writes up something they can mail you (at their expense), there’s not a whole lot of sources.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:29 am
One disadvantage of this incredible scattering of news and analysis, is that it does, as Boomer alludes, allow people to “customize” their news and the opinions they get. And increasingly, people are getting news and commentary almost exclusively through sources who share and promote their worldview. And so our culture becomes more divided and insular. It is, as others have suggested, as if we don’t even speak the same language anymore.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:32 am
#31 yep, I come here for instance for the sole purpose of finding out what Romney supporters think, since they are literally banned everywhere else I frequent
February 21st, 2012 at 9:32 am
31
Yes, exactly. You nailed it.
This is along the lines of what I’ve been saying about our ever-increasingly connected society becoming more insular and scattered.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:34 am
9- SixMom – Yeah, exacatly. haha Good one. . . . spot on.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:35 am
30.
Matt – I don’t disagree that it is easy to find not just pro-Mitt sources but actual factual information about not just Romney but all candidates now that it used to be. What I do disagree with is that more people are absorbing that information.
For example, it has been pointed out by me, Mass Con and others numerous times here that Romney is the only Republican in the race who actually cut spending when he was in a position to do so. Not the rate of growth, actual spending. We’ve even given links to sources such as the Mass Budget and Policy Center which tracks the actual budget numbers. Yet we are rebutted here and other places with claims that Romney never cut spending and is a big government liberal which is the exact same thing rightwing media preaches.
Last election, Rush was preaching that Romney was the candidate in the race that represented all 3 legs of the conservative stool and his followers bleated the line. This year, he is the liberal and his supporters are blindly bleating that as well.
Media still has an outsized importance when it comes to influencing people’s opinions.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:41 am
According to reports, Romney spent 3x as much in January as he raised and
had his worst fundraising month. Chuck Todd speculated he may need to self-fund.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:42 am
#35 what you don’t get is that it matters who else is running.
if you have to choose from Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, and Bill Clinton… Clinton is the obvious choice
But then next election if you get to choose from Bill Clinton, George W Bush, or Ronand Reagan… Clinton would be your last choice
February 21st, 2012 at 9:45 am
Speaking of fundraising…
This made me smile
Sheldon Adelson: ‘I Might Give $100 Million to Gingrich’
http://networkedblogs.com/ufktS
February 21st, 2012 at 9:47 am
38. Tele, word is that the REASON Sheldon might give more to Gingrich is more to hurt Santorum than to help Gingrich.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:48 am
37.
Yes, I’ve only heard this dumb rationale about 1000 times now. It doesn’t make any more sense now than it did the first time I heard it.
If Limbaugh said 4 years ago that Romney was conservative on his own merits, not based on the competition, he doesn’t now get to change the story to say that he is some how now a liberal because the other candidates are more conservative in his opinion.
The simple fact is you True Conservatives like to change the story to suit your needs. Romney was a conservative last race and he remains one.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:48 am
7
Very valid arguments, which makes the cancelling of the Georgia debate totally awesome!
15
I donate to him.
Politics are funny. If he writes checks to his own campaign, it is quickly spun into something bad. Like, “he can’t get people to donate to him, and is “forced” to fund his own campaign.” Or Rick starts whining about “it’s me vs the rich guy’s millions!!” Yeah, Mitt’s rich, and I happen to think that he’s ready and willing to pump his own hard earned money into his campaign, but he’s smart enough to see the negative political implications. Your baiting comment is shallow – we both know you’d attack him like crazy if he actually did write checks himself.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:49 am
Mitt Romney’s Money problems
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/romneys-money-problems/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
February 21st, 2012 at 9:52 am
Again, notice how the RomNot commenters are opting to criticize Romney on his fundraising now that he’s gaining some serious ground in the upcoming states.
Even yesterday, these articles were out. But NO ONE was talking about them because Romney had not shown much momentum in the polls.
Now that Romney is leading in Michigan, leading in Arizona, and tied for first in Georgia, they are panicking and grasping for things to attack Romney on.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:56 am
#40 I can only speak for myself… but I will reveal something to you… I voted for Romney in 2008.
*gasp*
Yep, I am one of those people who voted for Romney in 2008, who is now firmly in the ABR camp.
And here is the reason:
In 2008 there were only 2 viable candidates McCain and Romney. And from my perspective that equaled a choice between a backstabbing traitor to conservatives, or a moderate. I choose to support the moderate in that instance.
fast forward to 2012.
There were TONS of viable candidates (in my opinion) in fact I would of been happy with nearly anyone who ran this year with 3 exceptions (Paul, Huntsman, Romney) who by comparison were far more liberal (in my opinion) than the others. BUT, that doesn’t mean I hated any of those three (at that time) …. but here is what happened… Romney used his money to systimatically destroy each and every one of my acceptable alternative … ironically in my order of preference. This act of his is what has engendered my current level of hate for Romney.
I can’t explain it any clearer
February 21st, 2012 at 10:00 am
The polls in Arizona and Georgia are great. Arizona is what I thought it was, but what PPP was attempting to obfuscate. But Georgia, where Mitt is only 2 down to Gingrich, is excellent. I knew Mitt had spent a little time there, and was thinking it was hopeless, so why bother. This, however, makes it quite possible to see a win, following victories in Arizona, and probably Michigan and Washington.
He might not win it, but he’s closer than I had thought.
February 21st, 2012 at 10:01 am
44
Actually, Romney only destroyed one candidate – Gingrich. The rest collapsed on their own. If you can’t admit that first, then there’s no moving you.
February 21st, 2012 at 10:07 am
Certainly with the Internet age, getting one’s message out is easier and cheaper. It also helps when the major “Conservative” media outlet talks you up, invites you on for hours at a time on various shows in a week, all for free. Has this same advantage been extended to Romney? Perhaps. But what we do know is that no other candidate gets more negative reporting than positive reporting, only Romney. And it is severely lopsided.
Still, I don’t see how being able to raise a lot of money and spending wisely is a knock against a candidate that is trying to run for office on the basis of cleaning up the expenditures in the country.
Final observation. One I made in a previous thread. Sure, there are a lot of wealthy donors out there. Many who are ABR. But Romney and the others also depend on the $10 – $100 donors, us little guys who try to commit to our candidate in any way possible. I think the ABR candidates have run those donors dry. Perry made out with that group. Then Cain pulled in a massive haul, but his stay at the top was very short lived. Gingrich was left, but probably a lot of the small donor ABRs held on to their cash because Perry wasn’t out at that point and Santorum was still hanging around.
What does this show? Romney’s ceiling of 25% really wasn’t a ceiling, and he and Ron Paul have a dedicated base and decent following of people for donation purposes.
February 21st, 2012 at 10:09 am
46. And the Romney destruction machine only kicked into gear in FL. Ron Paul’s destruction machine, an efficient assassin, did all the damage in Iowa and NH.
February 21st, 2012 at 10:18 am
#32 I was banned from Free Republic for posting links to anti-Newt information. The fires of Inquisition seem to be burning brightly over there and in certain elements of the Republican party these days.
We’ll just have to be magnanimous to them this fall as we campaign for Mitt (or whoever the nominee is
) in our local voting precincts.
February 21st, 2012 at 10:24 am
MWS #2 – You would need to spend much more when you are being attacked on every front – from Obama machine, many Democrat organizations, all media (even our own conservative TV and media) and more, while the other candidates are getting more free air time than they know what they can do (except for Newt, who merely is basking in all of those spotlights). Yes, you need to outspend your competitors when they have every advantage offered to them on the silver plate.
February 21st, 2012 at 10:27 am
Mass Con,
“Even yesterday, these articles were out. But NO ONE was talking about them because Romney had not shown much momentum in the polls.”
What the hell is wrong with you?
I was talking about it last night and you responded.
You guys are getting so hyper sensitive again about any negative possible comments about Mitt that you make stuff up. You know your comment on 43# is 100% false.
I thought better of you..I guess I was wrong.
How could you even type that when we had a disscussion when the info first came out?
HOLY SMOKE!!
February 21st, 2012 at 10:31 am
#45: Kill
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but IMO you’re dead wrong. Saying “Romney used his money to systematically destroy the ABRs” that made you happy it just fallacious thinking. If you will look at the facts, this just isn’t true. Bachmann won the IA straw poll and got immediately bumped off the map by Rick Perry. Her Gardasil causes retardation didn’t help. Whether fair or not, Bachmann was seen as crazy and a prevaricator. Mitt had nothing to do with Michele’s fall.
Rick Perry bumped Bachmann and then fell from his sky high polls because of poor debate performances and becaus he sounded dumb. Mitt had nothing to do with it. Cain rose to new heights, everbody loved HIM, Fox and Rush touted him to the high heavens and even when Cain started making a series of gaffes, misspeaks, and strange, ignorant comments people stayed with him until the sexual harrassment stuff came out and Cain couldn’t handle it. It was Huck who declared, “The damage is done.” Mitt had nothing to do with it.
Newt rose way above Mitt in the polls. Horrified people who knew Newt in his former life came out of the woodwork to warn the American people: Newt is nuts; don’t vote for him. Yes, both Paul and Mitt’s pack slammed Newt in IA and then Newt showed to the world he’s not only nuts, but in a bad way. Mitt himself had a little to do with it, but if Newt had stayed on task, Mitt could not have hurt him.
Now Santorum is riding high and the GOP powers that be are horrified since they know that Rick is a mouth on wheels and cannot shut up and therefore cannot get elected. This is not Mitt’s fault.
Mitt did NOT bring these people down with his money. These people didn’t fall because of lack of money. They fell because of lack of ability. Saying Mitt brought them down is as dishonest as my Dem friends who claim Obama would be the best POTUS since Geo. Washington except the Republicans blocked him from doing what he needed to do to save the country.
With all due respect, Killjoy, IMO you are lying to yourself. Your “hate” is unjustified and misplaced.
February 21st, 2012 at 10:36 am
51
Smack, my comment was not about you, it was about others, like Killjoy, Teledude, and Jason.
February 21st, 2012 at 10:39 am
#46 – As we should! Newt IS NOT the man for the job. He is in it only for himself, and nobody else. He has never cared for those close to him, so why should he care for the people he does not see on daily basis? Yes, everyone should do their best to destroy Newt by presenting his records. He is a historian who loves to rewrite the history as HE sees it.
February 21st, 2012 at 10:42 am
Mass Con,
“But NO ONE’
…is what you said….
And the information did not come out until last yesterday.
But I understand why you are giddy today.
Enjoy.
February 21st, 2012 at 10:46 am
#52. I agree. And Gingrich was brought down more by Paul’s ads than Mitt’s.
February 21st, 2012 at 10:47 am
55
Smack, you need to chill out. How you could become so angry with me over something stupid like that, is beyond me.
I’ve been nothing but honest in all the time I’ve been here. I use hyperbole occasionally, so I don’t see the shock in your comments about what I said. Relax.
February 21st, 2012 at 10:50 am
Mitt has money because the people with money are betting on him to win. They look at the field and are playing the odds. The wild card though is the GOP voters. The money people, who are by definition smart and pragmatic, might be projecting their intellect onto the voters, who are probably way less informed, way more emotional and have different motives than the money people.
We all love Granny, but her post about Santorum opens the window into the mind of many GOP voters. Social issues trump economic and defense issues. Her rationale is if we vote for a hard-core, died in the wool social issues candidate, like Santorum, then God will bless America and the economic and defense issues will be taken care of by God.
I do believe God will bless America as her people follow God. I don’t know that Americans would repent and follow God if Santorum were POTUS. It looks like there are many who would not vote for Mitt (even tho by every measure he is a man of God) because he supports a satanic cult and such a president would bring on the cursings rather than the blessings of God.
My point: Rational, pragmatic people may not understand the motivations of more of the GOP voters than they would like to admit.
February 21st, 2012 at 11:23 am
sounds reasonable, but it doesn’t explain your vitriol against romney. It’s almost personal.
February 21st, 2012 at 11:27 am
#59 The “hate” Romney comes from the same ungodly source as the irrational hatred of GWB. There may be reasons to disagree with them–or prefer another candidate, but we pretty much know where irrational hatred comes from–and it ain’t God.