The Enthusiasm Gap

[joseftu]

This story (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05assess.html?ex=1333425600&en=fae4f5f96c212f2e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) is something that I've been noticing...not so much on the web, where the right dominates (at least where I hang out online! ;))

Not only do the figures that came out yesterday show that Obama is almost equal with Hilary in fundraising--they show that the Democrats are way outdoing the Republicans in fundraising (at this stage of the campaign).

That's a big deal in itself--unprecedented in the past three decades. But it also represents something that might be even more of a big deal--for a change the Democrats are the ones who feel that both candidates (or either candidate) can win, and should win, and will win--while the Republicans are in a distinct slump--in terms of excitement and enthusiasm, even more than fundraising.
“The Democrats seem to have a lot more hunger for the White House right now than we do,” said Scott Reed, who managed the presidential campaign of Bob Dole, a Kansas Republican, in 1996. “Part of it on the Republican side may be Bush fatigue. But clearly, the Republicans are going to need to get it together on finances if we are going to compete with the likes of Obama or Hillary Clinton. It’s a concern.”

Officials of both parties as well as independent analysts said the figures quantified a trend apparent here and in New Hampshire, where Democratic presidential candidates consistently draw crowds at rallies and house parties.

"This reflects on the part of Democrats not only their view of the prospects of victory in 2008, but also how they are coming off this rush of the 2006 elections,” said Costas Panagopoulos, a political science professor at Fordham University. “In terms of Republican candidates, voters are feeling like they have to choose from a list of who represents the least of all evils.”
I think that another part of it is that a large amount of the force and enthusiasm behind the Republicans in recent elections has come from the religious right (out of proportion to their actual numbers)--and they just can't get moving behind any of the current Republican candidates.

Will it last? Have a real effect? Impossible to know.

[tke711]

I think the fund-raising difference we're seeing is because corporate/union/insert organization looking for payback here are assuming that the next President will be a Democrat (not a bad assumption unless Hilary gets the nod). Thus, they are already hedging their bets and giving lots of money so they can be first in line when that person takes office.

The religious right likely has very little to do with the difference as I've always believed they are a much smaller group of influence then Hilary and the MSN likes to make them out to be.

[mikeky]

I just think there isn't currently a Republican candidate that most feel very confident with. It's hard to get enthusiastically behind someone you don't think can win.

[ethics]

I just think there isn't currently a Republican candidate that most feel very confident with.

Exactly.

[Copzilla]

Will it last? Have a real effect? Impossible to know.
My opinion... yes. The election is the Democrat's election to lose at this moment.

That's a very wide margin for error, I will add. Any marginalization of middle America, and the Dems will be on their asses again. I don't know how to overemphasize this. If middle America comes to believe the candidate is pandering to special interests and doesn't give a damn about who does the real work in this country, the candidate is screwed blue. The amount of money poured into it afterwards won't mean squat.

Obama and Hillary are both very capable of making this mistake. They've got to avoid the freak side of the left voter base - they will vote Dem anyway - and appeal to old school Democratic base values.

[ravital]

I think that another part of it is that a large amount of the force and enthusiasm behind the Republicans in recent elections has come from the religious right (out of proportion to their actual numbers)


Emphasis mine

That's absolutely true. And I suspect the religious right is where the majority of voters are who according to the article find themselves looking for the least of all evils. The rest of the republicans, will, at least I hope so, be the ones to select their candidate without undue influence from the religious right - with all due respect to them, let them form their own party rather than hijack an otherwise viable one.

[joseftu]

There's another piece of information hiding in those fundraising numbers, too.

Hilary's money ($26 million) comes from 50,000 contributors
Obama's money ($25 million) comes from 100,000 contributors
Edwards' money ($14 million) comes from 40,000 contributors

On the Republican side:
Romney's money ($20.6 million) comes from 33,000 contributors
Giuliani's money ($15 million) comes from..."unavailable" number of contributors
McCain's money ($12.5 million) comes from 60,000 contributors

So that seems to indicate a much larger number of contributors to Democrats than to Republicans (even with Giuliani's unavailable). And the average size of contributions (if my math is right) boils down like this.
Hilary=$520
Obama=$250
Edwards=$350

Romney=$624
Giuliani=unavailable
McCain=$208

Don't know if the logic holds up, but it seems to me that larger numbers of smaller contribution are a better sign in terms of breadth of support (and that the support is coming from people rather than big corporate powers/unions). Which looks good for McCain and for Obama in particular.

Also, I think that the people who make small donations online (this is where the majority of Obama's fundraising has come from) are people who can be hit again and again for more small amounts--it's a more sustainable base of support--the Dean lesson (which didn't much help Dean, admittedly).

[mikeky]

I'm not sure about that. Larger donors may hold off until there's a clear front-runner so their contributions will have more impact. After all, they have more to lose if their candidate loses.

[Stiofán]

It's way too early to draw any conclusions about most popular at this point. Way too early.

[joseftu]

:)
So we agree!

Still, the Obama surge is interesting--particularly the way he's using the internet (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/05/MNGFAP353K1.DTL).
"In 50 days, Obama went from not having announced (his campaign), and not having an e-mail list -- from zero to 100,000 (donors),'' Randlett said. "That is just unprecedented in American politics, and you could never do it without the Internet.''

[Steelermatt90]

i dont think that kind of supply will be able to keep coming for the democrats. the republicans will start later and blow them out of the water.