Buy at Amazon

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

"Deep but Narrow?" Other POTUS hopefuls rely on Big $$$$ donors MUCH more than Romney

I love numbers and graphs. Here, the NY Times has provided a great resource.

Many may have seen my post on the MSM's attempts to "explain" or "knock" Romney's fundraising.

I've analyzed some of the numbers and we can see who's REALLY tapping the big money donors the most.

Analysis of maxed-out donors ($2300/donor):

Total(mil) from max-out donors
% of total contributions from maxed-out donors









T. Thompson


The one thing that stands out is that Hillary is the epitome of the "Big Money" candidate. 3/4th of her massive haul came from donors who contributed the max. She nearly doubles all other candidate in the total haul from maxed-out donors at $19.2 million. This is obviously a testament to the Bill and Hillary Clinton fundraising machine. However, it portends that she has a lot of work to do to expand her fundraising base.

Also, Obama and Edwards aren't quite the pure "candidates of the common man" that they get made out to be (they are grouped with Romney getting just under half of their funds from "big money" donors . . . but the MSM's been telling us that Romney's the one whose "Rolodex is stuffed with wealthy supporters")

Giuliani, percentage-wise at 61%, drew much more heavily on wealthy supporters than any other GOP candidate. He'll have more work to do than Romney (48%) and McCain (43%) at building a more sustainable fundraising base.

Among non-top-tier GOP candidates it appears that Brownback has the most hope of building some fundraising momentum in smaller donations . . . but he doesn't seem to be able to lock up the big donors, which is not good news for him. It is actually doubtful that any of them will be able to raise much money in comparison to the top-tier candidates.

1 comment:

Political Realm said...

About Obama and Edwards getting support from the common man: Obama did draw about $6.5 million from the under-$500 group, while Edwards brought in $2.2 million--both much more than Romney.

What the reports show me is that the Giuliani and Romney both drew heavily from the big donors (when you include the $1500-$2300 group, they're virtually the same percentage). And both performed the weakest of the so-called top tier with smaller donors. McCain far out-paced them in that area, though he certain lagged with big donors.

You're right about Clinton, though. She's the big money queen. The small donor is a very small percentage of her total.

Of course, having a lot of big donors that max out isn't a terribly bad thing. It a) gives you lots of money and b) shows that you can close the deal.