The Burn Rates: Who Banked What?

RSS Feeds

Posted Apr 15th 2007 9:36PM by Matt Singer
Filed under: President 2008, Republicans, Democrats, Money Trail

Now that the hoopla over fundraising numbers has died down a bit, we can take a look at the amounts each presidential candidate raised, how many donors they had, and how quickly they're burning through their cash. Those numbers will give us a way better picture of where everyone is in the number race. More donors and more small donations means a bigger pool of people for candidates to resolicit. Lower burn rates means that more money goes into the bank to be used later down the road rather than disappearing.

MyDD.com has a nice roundup of cash-on-hand figures for the Republicans. Long story short? John McCain is burning through funds at a ridiculous clip. He's got a lot of donors, but his overhead is huge. His campaign isn't really sustainable. Mitt Romney raised a ton of money, but half of it got spent already. Many of his first quarter donors are maxed out, so he can't ask them for more. That's not a good sign. Giuliani's campaign is doing a lot better.

On the Democratic side, the big three are all in pretty good shape. None of them spent anything close to what McCain and Romney threw down the drain. The biggest spender was Barack Obama, who spent $6.6 million of his total haul -- between 1/4 and 1/3 of his receipts. His burn rate is high, but you don't get 100,000 contributors for free. You'd have to be crazy to think he's in a bad place. Hillary Clinton spent $5 million of the $24 she raised. Since she transferred some as well, she's still sitting on over $30 million banked -- the biggest total by far. John Edwards has nearly $11 million on hand -- roughly the same as Giuliani and Romney.
So, the Dems are clearly outpacing the Republicans once again. The Democrats are better positioned in terms of cash on hand, on the number of donors and on their burn rates. In other words, they're raising more money from more people at a lower cost.

No doubt the Democratic burn rates will increase as the candidates seek to invest in their campaigns and stake out some early ground to move polling numbers, etc. It's pretty clear, though, that they can afford to do that. The biggest impediment right now to more spending may simply be that it's a whole new ballgame -- no campaign in Democratic history has had the resources this early that all 3 of the Democratic top tier currently have.

Permalink
Email this
Linking Blogs
Comments [9]
Share this
- Add this post to...
- Netscape
- Digg
- Del.icio.us

Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)

1. The money angle is always interesting, but it can't buy a winning position on the issues. I hope the candidates will all avoid the Bush mistake of relying on political advisers to make policy.

Steve Bonomo at 11:51PM on Apr 15th 2007

2. From http://www.solidpolitics.com

Hillary' current fund-raising advantage may be short lived.... An analysis of Hillary's money shuffling shows Barack Obama may surpass the former First Lady in second quarter fund-raising reports....

Bill at 9:14AM on Apr 16th 2007

3. I am so happy to see the numbers as they are particularly for the Dems. It seems Senator Clinton's cache is being saved for the presumptive general election rather than the primaries. However ... with the huge donor pool that Senator Obama has amassed, it is understandably prudent to use that money wisely to amass more donations. I forsee that the junior senator from New York will have wasted her stockpile for a larger election she may not be able to get to ... which is, in my mind, a good thing so that she could redistribute the cache to other Dems around the country when the time is ripe to rip the shackles of power away from all the Bushites who have damaged the good will our country had before they stepped in to destroy it.

jomal58 at 1:58PM on May 7th 2007

4. How much did Bush spend on his campaign at this point in time and how much did he have on hand?

jv at 11:21AM on Apr 18th 2007

5. IF MONEY IS THE PRIMARY ISSUE,WHY NOT JUST ELECT THE ONE WHO WINDS UP WITH THE MOST MONEY? TO HELL WHO IS BEST QUALIFIED.YOU KNOW THAT THE PRESIDECY IS THE ONLT CIVAL SERVICE JOB ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO TAKE A TEST FOR, ISN'T THAT SOMETHING, ITS JUST WHO HAS THE MOST BUCKS AND THE BIGGEST LINE,THE COST OF LIVING , MED. GAS ETC HAS GONE OUT OF SIGHT ITS A JOKE THE ONLY PRESIDENT I THIK WHO REALLY CARED ABOUT THE PEOPLE WERE THE OLD TIMERS LIKE ROOSEVELT. IT JUST ALL COMES DOWN TO THE BIG BUCKS RIGHT

ernest johnson at 11:25AM on Apr 18th 2007

6. I wonder out loud whether Republican backers are waiting it out a bit to spend their money on the actual candidate??

lrguis3 at 12:36PM on Apr 18th 2007

7. George W Bush proved to the world that money can buy almost anything, especially the US presidency.

Allyson at 4:47PM on Apr 18th 2007

8. All the responders appear to have said it correctly. The big bucks do seem to make the president these days, as well as most senators. Most recently we can pretty much assume who helps get their man to the top. can't we? The oil boys, the pharmasuticle co,s,the insurance companies... Just total your monthly expenses on these three clubs, then check out the monies you paid before George Bush was (placed) in the White House. Don't forget the other good-ole-boys in there giving him all the advice that helped make America the way it is now..Dick Cheney worked for Halbriton, Don Rumsfeld worked as a head cpo for one of the largest drup companys..it goes on and on. I don' remember reading about Ashcroft, but he must have had a toe-hold in some big company. Lets hope we go back to sanity in our elections. I am pretty sure those same contributors are are out and about again..GOD HELP US AMERICANS!!

Betty at 6:18PM on Apr 18th 2007

9. Everybody wants to be president,who will be the best.
I as a woman voter, will not be voting for H CLINTON
At this time I do not trust her politics.

Not ready for any one at this time.

louise l young at 7:31PM on Apr 18th 2007