Fundraising Report Shows McCain Was Broke Before Big Primary Wins

Comments (21)

FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 31, 2008 10:24 AM:

That's all true. But I'd also point out that as of January 1, Clinton had stashed more than $18 million for the general election, and Obama more than $5 million. Even if McCain has raised enough to pay down his debts while going up on the air in the February 5 states - and he may have done so - he's going to be severely depleted by the time he locks down the nomination.

The Democrats, by contrast, have been raising record sums for the past two years. That's true of the DCCC and DSCC, which have rocked their GOP counterparts, and it's true of the presidentials as well. This fight can remain bruising right down to Denver, taking every primary dollar both candidates can raise - and they winner is still likely to start off with a substantial edge, based on their stockpiled funds, and watch it grow from there.

Angry Vet wrote on January 31, 2008 10:27 AM:

Truly back from the dead.

McCain's tenacity has been quite impressive in this race. Of course, not impressive enough ever to win a vote from me, but he has taken on the right wing slime machine, and certainly seems to be winning.

Good for him.

Has anyone noticed, that a similar battle seems to be going on in each party? In the Dems, it's a battle for the "soul of the party," pitting the Clintonista DLC vs. the progressive wing of the party.

For the Republicans, the "outsiders," like Giuliani, Schwartzenegger, and McCain against everyone else? Would this be an accurate portrayal?

FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 31, 2008 10:47 AM:

Angry Vet:

I'd beg to differ. It's not, for the most part, progressives against DLC-centrists. When you parse the policy disputes, they don't break down neatly along those lines. Unlike 1992, this campaign isn't being driven by a cogent debate over the direction of the party on policy matters.

Instead, we've got a contest for leadership that's been mostly framed as a personal contest. The Clintons and their backers have controlled the party for a decade and a half, and would like to go on running things. Obama and the coalition that he's assembled feel that the Clintons represent a tired movement that's stuck in a rut. Like most succesful insurgents, Obama has kept his appeal broad by sticking to generalizations - allowing diverse groups to read their own beliefs into his words. So progressives, as you point out, have overwhelmingly backed Obama, largely out of disgust with the status quo the Clintons have come to represent, embracing his call for change. Many old DLC types have also come out for Obama, impressed by his pragmatism and wonkish disposition. At the same time, independent voters and crossover Republicans have come out to vote for him, because they hear in his inclusive rhetoric a basic patriotism and religious faith, and a willingness to breach divides. All those groups can't be right, but Obama's genius is in finding a message that can be read in multiple ways.

So this is partly a generational battle - between the Clintons and Obama, between voters under 45 and boomers, between the Joshua Generation and the Moses Generation in the black community. And it's inflected with gender and racial divides, as women and whites back the Clintons in larger numbers, and men and blacks are drawn to Obama. But mostly, it's a very personal struggle for control of a party. And that makes it very different than the Republican race, which offered voters a smorgasboard of dramatically different philosophies, among which the electorate struggled to choose. The Democrats have actually been very close on policy matters, and bitterly divided on personal style. It's been an interesting year.

ChrisO wrote on January 31, 2008 10:47 AM:

"In the Dems, it's a battle for the "soul of the party," pitting the Clintonista DLC vs. the progressive wing of the party.... Would this be an accurate portrayal?"

It's not accurate at all, and your use of the term "Clintonista" makes it clear that you're hardly a neutral observer.

Despite the fact that Obama supporters try to claim the mantle of progresivism, the fact remains that Obama's positions are not more progressive than Hillary's. Obama's a great orator, but it takes more than good speeches to make one a true progressive. I can certainly understand a progressive voter supporting Obama, but I talk to many progressives who support Hillary, as well.

I think for many people it comes down to whether your focus is on "changing the tone" or getting results.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 31, 2008 10:48 AM:

Now heez got duh bling-bling tah let duh dawgs out . . . Oops . . . Dats duh udder guy.

Steve LaBonne wrote on January 31, 2008 10:48 AM:

Angry Vet, I like the Clintons less than ever after today's news stories about 1) Bill cozying up to Nazarbayev to do a favor for one of his foundation donors, and 2) the tapes of WalMart board meetings when Hillary was there, revealing not a peep from her about their union-busting. If I decide not to vote for Edwards in protest this March, Obama will almost certainly get my vote.

But if you really think the triangulating Obama- who has tried to run to Hillary's RIGHT on health care and Social Security, among other issues- actually represents the progressive wing of the party, you're truly naive.

Angry Vet wrote on January 31, 2008 10:57 AM:

Oooh, a hornets' nest.

No, I am not an objective observer. I thought I would through out the ideas I had vs. what I saw happening in the Republican race.

FOTW's analysis is stellar, and I stand corrected.

However, I would fight to the death on notions that "Obama is to the right of Hillary" on healthcare. There is no doubt where Obama stands on that, but he just thinks he'll get to universal coverage a different way. Besides, politics might be judged on a 1 dimensional line, but as we all know, there are many more poles than just "liberal" and "conservative" when it comes to ideas.

However, I'm a foreign policy wonk, and BHO hits the right tone. And any student of foreign policy knows, TONE is very important.

The "generalizations" vs. "policy" stuff is pure crap. You'll know exactly where BHO is on policy the moment you read his positions on his website. And, personally, his SS position is dead-on, even if it raises the "raising taxes" boogeyman.

However, my earlier comments were focused on the Republicans. Are we, in effect, seeing a war over the "soul of the Republican Party?"

FOTW- you are dead on with the "personal battle" idea, reference the Democrats.

As for anyone else out there perturbed by my "Clintonista" usage, s'okay. i admit to having drunk Obama's kool-aid. Happy now? At least I didn't call you robots. Besides, going back into the "battle" metaphor, "Clintonista" would be an apt aphorism.

Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 10:59 AM:

There's a possible election altering story on the front page of the NYT and another at ABC News....Strange no mention about these here.

Angry Vet wrote on January 31, 2008 11:00 AM:

A note on "running to the right of Hillary on social security," people only believe that because Obama sees a problem with the longevity of social security. The problem with it will come around in 2030, or something.

Yes, he has said it's a crisis, which us on the left recognize as something Republicans have said in the past. However, look at the solutions offered on the problem:

Republicans want to eliminate social security, or "privatize" it.

Obama wants to eliminate the disparity in the payroll tax, thus ensuring everyone pays the same percentage into social security, thus providing the capital needed to fund the program. I believe JRE also agreed on this solution

Hillary Clinton, however, virtually ignores the subject.

Who's running to the right now?

Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 11:04 AM:

"There's a possible election altering story on the front page of the NYT and another at ABC News....Strange no mention about these here."

My bust... I think? I now see mention of these over on the TPM site.

John McCutchen wrote on January 31, 2008 11:04 AM:

AP is reporting that OBAMA raised $32,000,000 in January ALONE

Angry Vet wrote on January 31, 2008 11:10 AM:

JM-
HOLY &%$#!!!!!!!

Anything on HRC?

mardanows wrote on January 31, 2008 11:16 AM:

Gs5yeyte4dS cool site!!! [url=http://mardanows1.com]cool site!!![/url] http://mardanows2.com hj56e45e

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 31, 2008 11:19 AM:

There's a possible election altering story on the front page of the NYT and another at ABC News....Strange no mention about these here.

To my mind, those stories by themselves merit a placement on Muckraker more than Election Central. Only at the point where we see polls come in telling us that these stories are shifting the vote do they really merit mention here.

verninino wrote on January 31, 2008 11:24 AM:

I have a question, why is running to the "right of Hillary" implied as being right-of-center?

I'm not an Obama fanatic (I voted for Nader, twice and was lined up squarely behind Edward's message), just asking...

LJ wrote on January 31, 2008 11:25 AM:

Speaking of fund raising number, Obama raised $32 million in January alone, including donations from 170,000 new donors. 650,000 people have have put their money where their mouths are for Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080131/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_money;_ylt=Al2lqDUnMi.fmNUj12.ICL6yFz4D

Pin Shot wrote on January 31, 2008 11:37 AM:

I don't know about the soul of the party but many lining up for Obama like being in the Congressional majority or are state and locals who depend on ye old Federal pork.

Call it enlightened self interest. The Clinton's practice an odd sort of trickle down. They screw up and the costs get payed by those running down ballot and the rank & file.

Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 12:06 PM:

"Yes, he has said it's a crisis"

there is no crisis.

joe wrote on January 31, 2008 12:20 PM:

just a question...you guys reported this morning that Mitt isn't buying airtime in the super tuesday states...is McCain not buying any either? seems like in his condition he couldn't be buying much....

Steve LaBonne wrote on January 31, 2008 12:57 PM:

I have a question, why is running to the "right of Hillary" implied as being right-of-center?

I made no such implication. I merely gave reasons why Obama is in fact part of the same centrist wing of the party as HRC- a progressive he's not. I'm OK with that for now; the progressive wing of the party isn't strong enough to field a viable presidential candidate- yet. workaday joe wrote on January 31, 2008 1:46 PM:

Flyonthewall-

That's one of the best descriptions I've heard of the situation on the Democratic side this year. Thanks for that.

Also, have you or have you considered posting this as a blog entry at one of the wholesale outlets like DKos or MyDD? You'd get pretty beat up but it may elevate the conversation a bit.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)