How Much Impact will Obama’s Money Have?
In the final primaries of the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, while Obama was raking in the cash, he wasn’t raking in the votes. Â According to one source, he outspent his spring rival, Hillary Clinton, by a margin of 4-1 (other sources peg the ratio at 3-1 or 2.3-1 on ad buys alone) in the Pennsylvania primary.
Hillary won the Keystone State by nearly 10 points. Â And this at time when her campaign was riven by factional infighting. Â Late-deciders broke for her by a margin of 3-2.
Because he has bypassed federal funding, Obama may well have a bigger war chest for this fall’s campaign than John McCain. Â So, will it help make the difference in November or will it have the same impact as his Pennsylvania profligacy?
Jim Geraghty may have found the answer.  In Florida, the state with the closest margin in 2000, Obama has so far sunk $8,000,000 into television advertising.  Although spending $8,000,000 less than Obama, McCain still manages to lead by 6.3 points in the Real Clear Average of Polls for the Sunshine State.
6 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Don’t worry. He’ll give a bunch of it to ACORN. How many fraudulent votes do you think $77 Million can buy?
Comment by Clint — September 17, 2008 @ 9:08 am - September 17, 2008
Clint is on to something—I’m worried about voter fraud making the difference in some close states, and it looks like they’ll be a lot of them.
It seems that Florida and even Ohio are not shaping up to be the real battleground states. They seem to be safe for McCain at the moment, and in any case, the way things are shaping up, Colorado and Virginia would lose him the election before Ohio and Florida would. I do think though that Iowa is probably lost, and if he were to win it, he would have already won big elsewhere. New Hampshire may also be tough to win. But if he can win Colorado, Virginia, and either Nevada or New Mexico, I think he wins the election. Those states will, I think, decide the election. And if he can pull in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, or Pennsylvania, it’s tough to see how Obama wins.
You’re right that Obama tends not to get a good return on his ads. The problem for Obama is that I think there’s not a lot of dirt on McCain, and it’s also tough to paint him as a 3rd Bush term when most Americans are aware of how much a thorn in Bush’s side McCain has often been. This could all turn around if Obama finds an effective way to attack McCain, but so far, he seems to be firing blanks. But he also has a problem running positive ads in favor of himself, since his record is so thin and so liberal and he has a hard time talking substance. Obama’s other hope (given that the “hope” campaign theme has grown stale) is the debates, but he’ll have to be really on top of his game to beat McCain in those.
Events may shift the race back in favor of Obama, but right now, he’s in a tough place.
Comment by cme — September 17, 2008 @ 9:41 am - September 17, 2008
Obama’s ad spending is dwarfed by the impact of media that are openly acting as his PR arm. Is Google Totally in the Tank for Obama or what?
Comment by V the K — September 17, 2008 @ 10:45 am - September 17, 2008
The Obama campaign it is true will have more money than McCain. But last I heard the RNC has 100 million in the bank compared to 15 million for the DNC. I know the Mac Palin team can’t direct the party money but the RNC would be dumb not to push Mac Palin while running ads for a local guy.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 17, 2008 @ 11:20 am - September 17, 2008
Of course, one huge disadvantage Obama has in raising more money is that it limits his ability to campaign in swing states, and even when fundraisers are held in swing states, they tend to be small affairs focused on rich donors who want their guy/gal to preach to the choir, not large gatherings that include normal Americans who are still making up their minds. Can Obama have more money to spend than McCain? Sure, but probably at the expense of fruitful campaign stops. Plus, can Obama continue to raise money at the same rate in September and October? Perhaps, but he may be limited by the amount rich donors can give (who’ve already given up to the legal limit) and less wealthy donors may be too worried about their own personal finances to be able to dish out much money. Bottom line: it’s not at all clear that Obama will have a money advantage, and even if he does, it’s not at all clear that it will help him.
The other downside of fundraisers is that the candidate often produces quotes embarrassing to his candidacy, such as the “clinging” line from San Francisco earlier this year. Even if Obama can abstain from making some gaffes, fundraisers tend to make a candidate look more out of touch with normal folks. I disagree with McCain on campaign finance laws, but not only does he practice what he preaches, he also seems to have made the much wiser decision than Obama with regard to public financing.
Another thing working against Obama is that, as Dan, Michael Medved, and others have pointed out, Obama seems to tire more quickly on the campaign trail than McCain (or, for that matter, Palin). Perhaps the demands of campaigning will catch up with McCain and his 72-year old body sometime in the next two months, and he’ll suddenly start losing it. But so far, the more youthful candidate seems to be the one more worn out by an arduous campaign schedule.
Comment by cme — September 17, 2008 @ 11:47 am - September 17, 2008
[...] Obama’s money won’t buy him electoral success afterall. Â We should also wonder why his campaign felt it necessary to dispatch North Dakota [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » As Goes North Dakota . . . — September 22, 2008 @ 4:30 pm - September 22, 2008