Congratulations have to go out to Pat Tiberi and Steve Stivers.
They are totally dominating the money race. And as we always say, money doesn't win elections, but it sure does help.
Just ask Jennifer Brunner.
But these fundraising totals really are a case study in how this election season is going.
In one corner, we have the incumbent Republican facing a high profile challenger.
In the other corner, we have an incumbent Democrat facing a high profile challenger.
Each incumbent has had over a year and a half to build their war chest and prepare for their challenger.
So where do they stand?
Tiberi, the Republican incumbent, has $1.9 million cash on hand.
Mary Jo Kilroy, the Democrat incumbent and Stivers' opponent, has only $934k in the bank.
And the challengers?
Paula Brooks, Tiberi's Democratic challenger, has only $680k in the bank.
Steve Stivers, the Republican challenger, has $1.24 million cash on hand.
How can that possibly be?
Kilroy didn't have a primary opponent? Why is her cash on hand so low compared to Pat Tiberi?
Paula Brooks has been in the race longer than Steve Stivers, yet he has almost double her cash on hand.
And in each, the Republican is dominating the Democrat.
That's particularly amazing for Stivers considering how much less time he's had to fundraise relative to Kilroy. But then you look at how he pulled in more than twice the haul of Mary Jo Kilroy this quarter and it makes a bit more sense.
So why the disparities? It's very simple.
Contributors give money in tight races and to people they believe are going to win.
When you see disparity is when the outcome seems likely, one way or another.
Tiberi is leaving Brooks in the dust because contributors don't give Brooks much of a chance.
Stivers has already surpassed Kilroy's haul because contributors believe he is going to win.
Ultimately, Tiberi is going to win his race. That's why Paula Brooks never bothered to move into the 12th district.
Stivers race is clearly more competitive, and contributions from the DCCC will likely help Kilroy keep up with the Republican as each raises cash into the fall, but the writing on the wall is clear - Stivers has the momentum. And contributors know it.
Interestingly enough, targeted Ohio Democrats Charlie Wilson and Zack Space were two of the very few Congressmen who didn't release their fundraising totals with everyone else.
Releasing fundraising reports is a chance for campaigns to brag. Clearly, Wilson and Space don't have anything to brag about.
Their challengers, Bill Johnson and Bob Gibbs, respectively, still have a ways to go when it comes to raising money, but they are up against two Democrat incumbents in congressional districts that went to McCain in 2008. With the proper fundraising, they could pose a very serious threat this fall.
Wilson and Space didn't release their fundraising totals?
ReplyDeleteThen how did I write about them FOURTEEN HOURS AGO?
http://www.plunderbund.com/2010/07/15/happy-fec-filing-day/
Space and Wilson's reports weren't available on the FEC's website apparently when this reporter wrote the story. But they did release their numbers right within, at worst, a couple of
hours of Brooks and Kilroy.
BTW, I guess this means Kasich's campaign finance reports show he's in much more trouble than you've admitted, huh?
LOL @ accosting me for reporting what both a reporter and the FEC said.
ReplyDeleteAs for what it says for Kasich's fundraising, you clearly are having reading comprehension issues again. But it's not unlike you to take apples and oranges and try to say they are both apples.
For the slow among my readers (read: Modern), unlike the congressmen, Strickland had 3.5 years, not 1.5, to build his cash lead over his opponent.
And yet, that hasn't stopped Kasich from outraising Strickland in every reporting period he's been in the race, and outraising him overall during that same timeframe by a sizeable amount.
Strickland's advantage is due to his much longer time to raise cash.
That's why he had a $3.6M cash on hand advantage when John first entered the race. And now that has been nearly been cut in half, despite Kasich having to build a statewide organization up from scratch.
Um, Strickland raised more money than Kasich did in the last reporting period. Kasich has been running for three years. Everyone in Ohio knows this. That's what his Recharge Ohio PAC was all about. For him to raise money to build a campaign to run for Governor.
ReplyDeleteUm, the FEC wasn't quoted in the story, and nothing in the report indicates that the reporter got the information from anywhere but the FEC's website.
It's okay to admit you were wrong. Just be a man about it.
LOL! Whaaaat?
ReplyDeleteIf you want to say a last second infusion of 100s of thousands of dollars = beating Kasich, that's your delusion.
As for the FEC, Wilson's own spokesman said it wouldn't be available until Monday in the article linked[click the picture, genius].
It says," Reports are due at midnight tonight, which means some were unavailable. Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-St. Clairsville, declined to make public his report, with a spokeswoman saying, "The report will be submitted this evening and will be available on the FEC website by the first of next week."
State Sen. Bob Gibbs, R-Lakeville, reported loaning his campaign $30,000 to give him a $209,534 balance. He raised $209,967 in the second quarter for his battle in the 18th Congressional District against Rep. Zack Space, D-Dover, whose report was not available today."
It's ok to admit you were wrong, Modern.
You know what I find funny, I cannot remember one instance where Keeling has posted in direct response to a PB post by Modern.
ReplyDeleteYet, it is almost daily that Esquire writes a post that is all about Keeling.
Obsession much?