Google Ads


Site Stats

January Party Committee Fundraising Roundup

by: DavidNYC

Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 9:52 PM EST


Everybody needs money. That's why they call it money. Here are the January fundraising numbers for the six major party committees (December numbers are here):

Committee January Receipts January Spent Cash-on-Hand CoH Change Debt
DCCC $4,689,595 $3,049,268 $18,321,761 $1,640,328 $1,333,333
NRCC $4,501,859 $3,043,209 $4,132,927 $1,458,650 $0
DSCC $5,104,289 $4,791,193 $12,950,254 $450,254 $833,167
NRSC $5,013,023 $2,689,836 $10,631,311 $2,331,311 $0
DNC $9,189,882 $7,629,473 $10,204,457 $1,521,120 $4,681,829
RNC $10,530,291 $9,469,361 $9,482,877 $1,060,929 $0
Total Dem $18,983,766 $15,469,934 $41,476,471 $3,611,701 $6,848,330
Total GOP $20,045,173 $15,202,407 $24,247,115 $4,850,890 $0

Like last month, the GOP once again outraises the Dems and narrows the cash-on-hand gap.
DavidNYC :: January Party Committee Fundraising Roundup
Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
January Party Committee Fundraising Roundup | 45 comments
The Senate Committee
The Dems are holding their own in the House Committee and National Committee; it's the Senate Committee's are where the Dems are betting hit badly.  It's got to be because of the lack of candidates in some races; Biden in DE. Bayh in IN, North Dakota too.  

What is happening with Evan Bayh's fundraising?  

Ahhh I'm an idiot!
I was looking at Cash-on-Hand change lol
[ Parent ]
Am I reading this right?
Both committees outraised their counterpart and the RNC only outraised the DNC by a relatively small amount. All three have more CoH than the Republicans. Where is this wave?
The GOP has people power!!

[ Parent ]
Still need money
I would think they should be doing better. The RNC always outraises the DNC so having the WH has closed the gap. Things are bad but there is still enough contrary evidence to suggest it won't be half as bad a people think.
[ Parent ]
I agree
I still believe that the Democrats will only lose 15-20 House seats and maybe 3-4 Senate seats (and even there, I think there is room for some surprises on the Senate side).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
I'm thinking 25 and 5-7
Bad but not meltdown.
[ Parent ]
I don't think 5-7 is ultimately what will happen
We're almost certainly going to lose AR, ND, and DE. We're likely (but not definitely) going to lose NV. That puts us at 4 down (and regardless of the state of the macro, I doubt our prospects will really improve here, maybe except for Nevada and possibly Delaware if Coons can run a spectacular campaign).

It's still possible that we'll lose Indiana, Illinois, Colorado, and Pennsylvania; but on the other hand, I'm actually feeling pretty good about Pennsylvania and Illinois (once the primary is over with, I'm pretty sure Specter's polling will get better against Toomey).

And if the environment gets even a little bit better, we'll have a good shot at taking Missouri, Ohio, and New Hampshire.

I will concede that I'm being probably among the more optimistic on this site, but I don't think I'll be wrong either.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
Im definitely more in the 3-5 range
With it probably being more like 5 than 3.  But I dont think this is necessarily an anti-Democrat cycle but more so an anti-incumbent cycle and we just so happen to hold just about all the swing seats where the partisan advantage can't save our party.  And this translating to open GOP Senate seats I think is going to work in our favor at least in a few open seats.  And OH and MO have two of the worst candidates the GOP could have, they have establishment, washington, typical politician written all over them.
[ Parent ]
Adjusting for reality
New numbers say MO tight as a drum.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

[ Parent ]
Look at 2006
Before you write off the GOP.
[ Parent ]
When the out of power
Party committees were killing the majority party committees?
[ Parent ]
Not even remotely true
[ Parent ]
Ok just the DCCC
Yes, the RNC had a big advantage and that saved lots of seats narrowly. Dems have that CoH advantage this time.
[ Parent ]
I may have seemed sarcastic
(The ridiculous phrase "people power" can only inspire that.) But I actually agree with you -- there are many races where all the money in the world won't be able to save certain incumbents (see: Lincoln, Blanche or Reid, Harry). Money's nice, but if you can't put it to use behind a compelling message, well, those big bucks won't get you as far as you'd like.
[ Parent ]
Sure
But those are people that might lose in a neutral year. How do they expand the map?
[ Parent ]
In a year like this
Republicans should be able to get more bang for their buck than Democrats. You expand the map by recruiting solid candidates who can raise respectable money.

I don't care to predict what the end result will be, but I'm expecting the GOP to inflict some serious damage, (supposed) fundraising woes notwithstanding.

[ Parent ]
Isn't everybody?
And how many of their solid recruits are actually raising respectable money? I'd say quite a few are and quite a few are not.
[ Parent ]
Disgusting
No reason for us to be getting outraised when we have such large majorities and the WH.

29/D/Male/NY-01
Oh my
Nothing further.
[ Parent ]
Sorry
But Tek's not wrong. We should be kicking their asses on the money front, not losing ground.
[ Parent ]
Why?
I think it is completely unrealistic to expect more than this. The Dems were doing far, far better in 2006.
[ Parent ]
Were we?
CoH, 12/31/2005:

RNC: 34.0m
NRSC: 10.5m
NRCC: 19.6m

Tot: 64.1m

DNC: 5.9m
DSCC: 22.4m
DCCC: 15.7m

Tot: 44m

The GOP is closer to our total CoH now than we were to theirs back then. Granted, we had a higher percentage of theirs than they do of ours. But we've banked less money this cycle despite having enormous majorities in the House and Senate and the guy in the White House than we did in 2005, the first year of Bush's second term.

If I told you in January 2006 that this state of affairs would come to pass, I doubt you'd believe me. The fact that we can't do far better than our own 2005 numbers is very troubling to me.

[ Parent ]
The Republicans also only have $24M CoH now
In absolute terms, you're right, but relative to standings, we actually have a larger relative CoH advantage over the Republicans than they had over us at this point in time before (we had 68% of the Republicans CoH, the Republicans have 58%)

It's also worth mentioning that the vast majority of their cash came from the RNC that year (and the dismal performance of the DNC dragged us down pretty hard). The Republicans are still having trouble fundraising effectively (except on the Senate side, which I'm willing to concede they've been doing a pretty good job) and it's a sign that the Democrats might not be in the hot water everyone assumes they're in.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
What were the relative numbers
During the Clinton presidency? Memory serves that the GOP always had an advantage.
[ Parent ]
I'm sure
That you can look them up.
[ Parent ]
Are you kidding?
Comparing 2009 to 2005 is a joke!

First, did you hear the economy collapsed?! Presidents only fund raise with the mega millionaire Wall Street/Tech types. Right now, those people have no money. Also, it would look bad for Obama to go to NYC and raise $12 million from the bankers who helped this economy collapsed.

Ignoring those 2 factoids what about the fact that Republicans are in bed with corporate interest and should raise more money since they are selling their sould. A company had more incentive in 2005 to give money to the party in power then they do today. No big fortune 500 company will give money to an administration that has no interest in deregulating their field. Under Bush, big oil, pharma, and ag companies could reap benefits from keeping Republicans in office.

Comparing the 2 cycles is ridiculous!  

[ Parent ]
Sorry
But the banksters have as much money as ever. We bailed them out, remember? Wall Street has been doing extremely well over the last year. I agree it would be unseemly for Obama to rake in bankster cash so overtly, but the money is there.
[ Parent ]
I disagree
The majority of money raised in NYC comes from Wall Street middlemen. In 2004 they were making millions, today many are unemployed. I don't care if the big firms are making money, the average worker isn't close to where they were and they're afraid the economy might collapse again.

I just think blindly comparing the two years is naive.  

[ Parent ]
If I were an RNC contributor I would be complaining
what the hell is with their high burn rate? The D's spent loads of money in MA so I get why they had a smaller changes in CoH, but what is the RNC spending money on? Michael Steele needs to shut up about fiscal responsibility until he nets significantly more than $1 million in a month.

Is there any chance Steele is really a Dem Manchurian candidate?

a HEIST reference? woot. NT

Grin
Nice catch! Then you'll also probably like this oldie but goodie.
[ Parent ]
DSCC's January spending
How much did they spend once alarm bells went off in Massachusetts? From what I understand, the NRSC didn't do much in that race apart from $250k in seed money in December.
They spend $2m+ more
So the bulk of that is probably MA. You guys really had a win-win-win there.
[ Parent ]
what bothers me more
is that all the cash they dumped in MA had zero effect. Makes me worried that they'll blow money in other states on ineffective ads.
[ Parent ]
Coakley actually won late deciders
So they made a difference. That race was lost in December.
[ Parent ]
Blowing money
Yeah, they'd do something stupid like try to save Blanche Lincoln.

That said, there are some places where a dollop of cash could prove very effective. Specifically: Delaware & New Hampshire spring to mind. Or maybe Iowa. I think showing a bunch of clips of Grassley being a cranky old jerk could weaken him more than you might think.  

The trick is finding all the cheap places to advertise and where strong but underfunded candidates are running.  

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

[ Parent ]
I think in the end
The NRCC is going to be blamed for costing their side a shot at the house majority.  Their fundraising efforts have been downright pathetic this entire cycle.  Down 4-1 to the DCCC in cash on hand?  Ouch.

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13
corporations can ride to the rescue
Corporations have plenty of money to spend in 20-40 House districts, making up for the NRCC's failings.
[ Parent ]
Yeah maybe
but how willing are private companies to spend on campaigns in an economy like this?  

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13
[ Parent ]
Not to mention
Not all corporations lean Republican and their are other entities that certainly lean Democratic that are free to get involved.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, what if Microsoft
What if Microsoft suddenly decided they didn't like Dave Reichert anymore because he's homophobic and not tech-friendly enough? And that Suzan DelBene would be very amenable to their interests (as she probably would be, actually).

$10 million is a rounding error for them, but way more than enough to bury Reichert under a blizzard of negative ads.

Or maybe David Geffen decides he really hates people in the closet and gets a bunch of media companies together to destroy David Dreier.

It's still a crappy decision by the Roberts court, but it can cut both ways.

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

[ Parent ]
I'm A Bit Surprised
I would have thought that with an energized conservative base and a frustrated Democratic party that the numbers would have favored Republicans substantially more than they have recently. While money often follows power, many groups do better in opposition, especially when the opposition senses the opportunity for major gains.
Same Here
I was expected the Dems to be out raised by a substantial margin given the energized conservatives and the "independent" tea party.
[ Parent ]
Incomplete
This is an incomplete look so before people start panicking stop!

If Democratic candidates are raising more then Republicans in senate races the lack of funds raised by the DSCC is less important. Overall, in competitive races I have no idea who is raising more money but I assume the amount raised by the DCCC, DSCC and DNC is minimal compared to the amount raised by all the Democratic candidates.

On a side note, why is the DGA not included in this. Winning governor races right now has to be key with redistricting right around the corner.

January Party Committee Fundraising Roundup | 45 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox