Obama raised 66 Mio. $ last month

[Lunar]

The RNC is going to have to spend some money on House and Senate races though.

True, but the Presidency is the top-prize. And that's why they will pour 95% of their money into GOTV efforts. Because ultimately, if their people show up and vote for McCain/Palin it will trickle down on the Congressional races as well.

Actually, I think their risk analysis (payoff versus risk versus impact of spending) might show a number of senators higher.  The RNC will be an amplifier, if McCain is ahead or close, they will spend more and if McCain starts to fall behind they will cut their spending.

Their highest amount of spending will be in swing states with competitive local races (like New Hampshire) and areas with cheap, efficient ad-markets.

[Lunar]

Your math is bad sir.  That 110 million already includes McCain's transfer and you ignore the DNC being able to raise money too, among other things.

[Lunar]

Some other tidbits to consider:

1) RNC money is not the same as campaign money.  Ben Smith points out that the confusing ads last week which had to take shots at Byron Dorgan in addition to Obama are a result of the fact that the RNC is bound by campaign finance rules.
2) For said reasons in #1, it's a lot better strategically to have Obama be loaded and assist the DNC than the opposite.  Money can be spent more effectively in that imbalanced scenario.
3) A lot of money can be spent early on organization and groundwork, that money, if already spent by the Democrats, would no longer be in the official numbers but still would be present in assets - their organization's strength.  Think about it, if I just bought a mansion, I might have less cash on hand afterwards than someone else, but it doesn't mean I'm poorer.
         I don't know what their respective spending habits though, so I don't know if the DNC owns that house (or if the RNC does).  I'm  just saying we don't know.  The DNC did spent 28 million last month largely on the ground game, but I  don't know if that is a lot.
4) It's not a spending battle between Obama+DNC versus McCain+RNC.   It's convenient to look at things in those terms but its not really accurate.

I agree with you though fundamentally that McCain is not going to be outmatched financially.  He'll have 0 trouble getting his ads on the air.

[Lunar]

Why the hell does the RNC have so much more money than the DNC?

Because there is a big difference from writing $100-$4,600 checks and $57,000 ones [in the case of a wife+husband].  Think about the demographics.

[Lunar]

The thing is the Republicans have more donors who can afford 28.5k (or 57k if including their spouse) than the Democrats.  Soros can trump most Republican donors, but he can only give 28.5k to the DNC.  Single donors cannot be representative because of finance rules.

If you want to throw in MoveOn.org, I don't know how that shifts the numbers.

[Lunar]

The thing is the Republicans have more donors who can afford 28.5k (or 57k if including their spouse) than the Democrats.  Soros can trump most Republican donors, but he can only give 28.5k to the DNC.  Single donors cannot be representative because of finance rules.

If you want to throw in MoveOn.org, I don't know how that shifts the numbers.

The main reason is because something between 40%-60% was transferred in from the McCain Campaign.

That's not true.  The fact  is that the RNC has more big-money donors than the DNC and that's not a bad thing.

For example, Palin just raised 1 million dollars for the RNC in Ohio (one day) and McCain just raised over five million in Florida (one day). 

The RNC had a lot of money already before McCain gave them what, 25 mill?  That's nothing considering their already 60-90 million dollar advantage over the DNC.

I'm not using this against you.  Obama has a fundraiser in Miami planned soon where they hope to raise 2-3 millions.  I mean, I'm suspicious of all of this money as a cynic, but I don't think it's a knock against McCain that he and the RNC are getting these figures.

[Lunar]

18 million, not 40 million.
link

So, 18/118= 15.8%.  So, not 40-60% and it's not the "main reason."

But it did help!  Remember that McCain was spending like crazy last month, including spending in Minnesota and North Carolina.

[Lunar]

Do you have a source for this variation?   Where are you seeing this variation?

Because you seem to be arguing that there's a source out there that McCain raised over 50 million dollars (how much it would take him to get to 60%) in two days in September that contributes to this confusion.  I think we would have heard about that.

Your low number indicates that McCain raised almost 28 million in two days.  That would be impressive as well.

[Lunar]

Do you have a source for this variation?   Where are you seeing this variation?

Because you seem to be arguing that there's a source out there that McCain raised over 50 million dollars (how much it would take him to get to 60%) in two days in September that contributes to this confusion.  I think we would have heard about that.

Your low number indicates that McCain raised almost 28 million in two days.  That would be impressive as well.

The one source I saw was that he raised $47 million and had COH going into the month.  That might exclude another $10 million.

source?


47 million is how much he raised in August, but that's not how much he transferred to the RNC.  It's not like he raised the money all on August 30th.   McCain spent the majority of that.

[Lunar]

link doesn't work

[Lunar]

link doesn't work

Then go to FEC site, which was where I got it.  As of yesterday, they didn't the August report up.

Ok, I went there.

The numbers ad up fine.   You're just arguing that there's no way that McCain spent 2 million dollars a day last month, or about 60 million.  I don't see what's so unbelievable about that.  Obama spent 55 million last month.  Are you saying it's physically impossible for McCain to spend 5 million more than Obama right before he has to give all of his money away?

You have proven NO variation in the numbers for the Cash on Hand at the end of August or that the RNC got 40-60% of its current 114 million from McCain.

Why can't you just admit you are factually wrong?

[Lunar]

Did you read my post?  I told you, if McCain, like Obama, had spent 55 million dollars in the last month, he'd be only 5 million away from 18 million.  You have to SUBTRACT how much is spent over the month from your totals.

[Lunar]

Chronology:

JJ gives an absurd claim that the RNC got “40-60%” of it’s 114 million from the McCain campaign.

Lunar says no, that’s wrong, here’s a clear source that he transferred 18 million + whatever he could raise in two days in September.

JJ says well there’s a lot of variations in the numbers, so I don’t accept that sourced 18 million number. 

Lunar says there is no variation in the numbers.  Give me a source.  Note that there has never been any variation in the numbers posted in this thread.

JJ says I can’t find a source for my claims, but I’ll prove how much cash on hand McCain had last month (37 million).

Lunar points out that that 37 million number fits into the number scheme fine.  McCain would only needed to have spent about 9% more than Obama did in the month of August to reduce his total to 18 million, certainly feasible.  Thus that 37 number is irrelevant.

JJ repeats about the 37 million number and ignores Lunar’s post.

Lunar wonders if JJ actually stole that bumper sticker.  

[Lunar]

Chronology:

JJ gives an absurd claim that the RNC got “40-60%” of it’s 114 million from the McCain campaign.

Lunar says no, that’s wrong, here’s a clear source that he transferred 18 million + whatever he could raise in two days in September.

JJ says well there’s a lot of variations in the numbers, so I don’t accept that sourced 18 million number. 

Lunar says there is no variation in the numbers.  Give me a source.  Note that there has never been any variation in the numbers posted in this thread.

JJ says I can’t find a source for my claims, but I’ll prove how much cash on hand McCain had last month (37 million).

Lunar points out that that 37 million number fits into the number scheme fine.  McCain would only needed to have spent about 9% more than Obama did in the month of August to reduce his total to 18 million, certainly feasible.  Thus that 37 number is irrelevant.

JJ repeats about the 37 million number and ignores Lunar’s post.

Lunar wonders if JJ actually stole that bumper sticker.

Let X equal the amount raised by McCain in early September.  Let Y be the amount of money spent between 8/1 and early September.

($30 M + $47M + X)  - Y = $18 M?  It sure doesn't look right.

YES IT DOES

McCain would only need to spend 60 million + X.

Obama spent 55 million in August.

How does that not look right?


NOT TO MENTION THE OFFICIAL NUMBERS AGREE WITH ME and not with you.  You cite official numbers for other months in order to make unreasonable conjectures that the official numbers are inaccurate. 

You have proved no "variation in the numbers."  You have no sources for your argument.  There's no one in the media talking about how suspicious these official numbers are.  There's no way that you're right here, just admit it.

[Lunar]

Yes we do have the numbers, they are sourced news agencies which post the campaign's claims.

Unless the McCain campaign is lying that is 18 million, but then they'd be caught..  Or I guess the news agencies might just have made that 18 million number up and the McCain camp didn't correct them?

We have McCain outspending Obama by $5 million (9%) + X on the basis that this is not an unreasonable spending and it's what lines up with the reported numbers.

And again you've lied about there being "variation" in the numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.  The subject may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation)

[Lunar]

You just now read that?  I've known about that 20 million for ages but didn't figure it was relevant.

It's been in my linked article for days in this thread.  I don't consider a joint committee to be a transfer from the McCain campaign to the RNC, that seems like a big stretch of the truth.

But even if you do include it, it is still is under the 40-60% of 114 million cited.

[Lunar]

It adds up fine because of the 20 million in the joint committee, JJ.

94+20=114 (the exact amount)

Even if you count that 20 as part of the McCain-to-RNC transfer, which I think is unfair, it's still not 40-60%.

Sigh.

[Lunar]

Eh, my understanding was that he spent 40 million in August, meaning that the 20 million counted to get to my number of 60 million.  I think that joint-fundraising committee counted as money that McCain himself raised, as a way to get people to donate 28.5k for something that sounds more McCainey but have it be under control of the RNC.  Still wasn't 40-60%, but I made one bad assumption that that money was always considered to be the RNC's by the media.

[Lunar]

No you weren't,  That wasn't somewhere in between 40-60%.  Will you at least admit you were wrong on that number?

[Lunar]

No you weren't,  That wasn't somewhere in between 40-60%.  Will you at least admit you were wrong on that number?

The total before the transfer was $76 M.  After the transfer, it was $110 M, if the reports can be believed.  110 - 76 = 34.  Do you understand the math so far Lunar>

34 is what percentage of 76?  44.745 do you understand that Lunar?

Sigh.

That's not how you do basic math JJ.

If you're trying to figure out what percentage of a total was acquired by a recent transfer, you divide the transfer over the new total, not the old total.  So you divide by 114 million.   60% of that is 68.4 million.  40% is 45.6 million.   

[Lunar]

Non-factual claims that JJ can't admit were wrong:

The thing is the Republicans have more donors who can afford 28.5k (or 57k if including their spouse) than the Democrats.  Soros can trump most Republican donors, but he can only give 28.5k to the DNC.  Single donors cannot be representative because of finance rules.

If you want to throw in MoveOn.org, I don't know how that shifts the numbers.

The main reason is because something between 40%-60% was transferred in from the McCain Campaign.

Wrong by his own numbers, unless he meant to say "40%-60% of their pre-transfer total" which doesn't make sense given the context or basic common-sense (why would anyone care about that).

The RNC is going to have to spend some money on House and Senate races though.

IIRC, they have separate funding.

Obama $77 Million plus $18 Million from the DNC.  $95 Million

McCain:  $84 Million federal in Sept., COH of $110 Million for the RNC.  Then there also McCain's COH, at least $47 million, it looks like.  That get's transferred to the RNC, the transfer didn't occur until after Sept 1.  About $240 Million.  I think McCain COH is low.

Just to make up the gap, Obama has to raise about $63 million per month.  That assumes that the RNC raises nothing.  My guess is that the RNC will raise $40-$60 million per month.  Just to get parity, Obama has to raise about $100 million per month, maybe a bit more.

The 240 million number is just absurd.

[Lunar]

Read the posts above and respond to the math, BRTD's post isn't relevant to my drivel and fuzzy math.

[Lunar]

Nor is J. J.'s response at all relevant to the post. Further proving the point really.

First, the numbers are wrong.  McCain had in access of $36 million on 8/31.

Now, I should have explained that a bit more clearly, the McCain contribution turns out to be about 47% of the that the RNC had previously.

But that's not what you said initially!  You're just changing your argument to fit the current numbers, which is highly shady.  See my post above where I posted your two quotations.

The main reason is because something between 40%-60% was transferred in from the McCain Campaign.

[Lunar]

Here are the two quotes you have to defend.  I'm not taking your bait on the other thread, because arguing with you is pointless if you can't admit these two statements were wrong.  At the very least, you perhaps made a poor choice of words?


Non-factual claims that JJ can't admit were wrong:

The thing is the Republicans have more donors who can afford 28.5k (or 57k if including their spouse) than the Democrats.  Soros can trump most Republican donors, but he can only give 28.5k to the DNC.  Single donors cannot be representative because of finance rules.

If you want to throw in MoveOn.org, I don't know how that shifts the numbers.

The main reason is because something between 40%-60% was transferred in from the McCain Campaign.

Wrong by his own numbers, unless he meant to say "40%-60% of their pre-transfer total" which doesn't make sense given the context or basic common-sense (why would anyone care about that).  Otherwise he is failing seventh grade math and doesn't realize that for the numbers to make any sense, given what he said and the conversation at hand (which was "Why does the RNC have 144 million dollars"), one has to divide by 114 and not 76.

The RNC is going to have to spend some money on House and Senate races though.

IIRC, they have separate funding.

Obama $77 Million plus $18 Million from the DNC.  $95 Million

McCain:  $84 Million federal in Sept., COH of $110 Million for the RNC.  Then there also McCain's COH, at least $47 million, it looks like.  That get's transferred to the RNC, the transfer didn't occur until after Sept 1.  About $240 Million.  I think McCain COH is low.

Just to make up the gap, Obama has to raise about $63 million per month.  That assumes that the RNC raises nothing.  My guess is that the RNC will raise $40-$60 million per month.  Just to get parity, Obama has to raise about $100 million per month, maybe a bit more.

The 240 million number is just absurd.

[Lunar]

So you admit you were slightly wrong on those two numbers?  Because angels will sing in heaven if this occurs!

It's cool on the 240 mill, I made my own mistake figuring out which side to throw that 20 million joint fundraising committee on (hence my inaccurate estimate of 18 million instead of 38 million for the transfer).