Obama Campaign Taps Cash Reserves, Adds Debt in July

[cinyc]

Obama Campaign Taps Cash Reserves, Adds Debt in July
ABC News/Devin Dwyer

You must be logged in to read this quote.

------------------
I'm not sure why the other thread was locked, but the Obama campaign continues to spend more than it is taking in and is getting significantly out-raised by the Romney campaign.  
Romney and the RNC raised $101 million last month.  Obama and the DNC raised $75 million.  Romney and affiliated groups (including the parties and joint party-candidate committees) now has about $60 million more cash-on-hand than Obama and his affiliated groups ($185.9 million vs. $126.7 million).

Romney's campaign committee, Romney for President Inc. raised $40 million and spent $33 million last month, per the Washington Times.  The Romney campaign spent $1.7 million on payroll, $15 million on television ads, $4.8 million on mailers, and $1.8 million on digital consulting.  Note that Romney's campaign committee proper raised $9 million less than Obama's campaign committee proper in July - and spent less than half as much on advertising.  It has much less cash-on-hand than Obama for America - $30.2 million.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

My god, his cash reserves fell from $97 million to $88 million in one month? At this rate, he could run out of money in April.

[Tender Branson]

Remember that there are only 2 months left.

If he raises 75 Mio. $ a month and has about 90 Mio. left, he can still spend about 120 Mio. for each of the final 2 months.

[J. J.]

Remember that there are only 2 months left.

If he raises 75 Mio. $ a month and has about 90 Mio. left, he can still spend about 120 Mio. for each of the final 2 months.

Which could be matched or surpassed by GOP spending. 

[President von Cat]

Remember that there are only 2 months left.

If he raises 75 Mio. $ a month and has about 90 Mio. left, he can still spend about 120 Mio. for each of the final 2 months.

Which could be matched or surpassed by GOP spending. 

Which is not new information, hence why the alarmist tone in this piece is really strange.

[pepper11]

Seriously? You guys are arguing that the $100+ million cash advantage that Romney will have in the last 2 months is not going to help his cause? Yes, Obama has money, and yes he will have plenty of ads all the way to election day. But, Romney will have a lot more. He will be able to dwarf Obama on the air in the current swing states as well as expand the map to Wisco and PA.  When he does that, Obama's cash disadvantage will become a real campaign disadvantage.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Seriously? You guys are arguing that the $100+ million cash advantage that Romney will have in the last 2 months is not going to help his cause? Yes, Obama has money, and yes he will have plenty of ads all the way to election day. But, Romney will have a lot more. He will be able to dwarf Obama on the air in the current swing states as well as expand the map to Wisco and PA.  When he does that, Obama's cash disadvantage will become a real campaign disadvantage.

Considering that Romney needed way more than a 3:2 money advantage to win primaries, it doesn't strike me as being that big a deal.  The main thing the money advantage lets Romney and the GOP do is twofold.

1.  It lets the GOP expand the playing field.  They can afford to spend money in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, New Jersey, Oregon. Minnesota, Maine.  Places where if Obama doesn't spend any money to respond, a Romney win is not unthinkable.

2.  It lets the GOP use the national campaign to build coattails downticket by running ads in Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Missouri where the Presidential race is not in doubt, but the Senate race potentially could be.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Seriously? You guys are arguing that the $100+ million cash advantage that Romney will have in the last 2 months is not going to help his cause? Yes, Obama has money, and yes he will have plenty of ads all the way to election day. But, Romney will have a lot more. He will be able to dwarf Obama on the air in the current swing states as well as expand the map to Wisco and PA.  When he does that, Obama's cash disadvantage will become a real campaign disadvantage.

Attack ads probably won't work much on Obama though. He's been President four 4 years and people already know him. It's not the same case with Governor Romney.

[pepper11]

Seriously? You guys are arguing that the $100+ million cash advantage that Romney will have in the last 2 months is not going to help his cause? Yes, Obama has money, and yes he will have plenty of ads all the way to election day. But, Romney will have a lot more. He will be able to dwarf Obama on the air in the current swing states as well as expand the map to Wisco and PA.  When he does that, Obama's cash disadvantage will become a real campaign disadvantage.

Considering that Romney needed way more than a 3:2 money advantage to win primaries, it doesn't strike me as being that big a deal.  The main thing the money advantage lets Romney and the GOP do is twofold.

1.  It lets the GOP expand the playing field.  They can afford to spend money in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, New Jersey, Oregon. Minnesota, Maine.  Places where if Obama doesn't spend any money to respond, a Romney win is not unthinkable.

This is exactly what I said.  Obama will have to chose. Defend and take cash away for VA, OH etc...or don't defend and hope that WI and PA dont turn color. Money matters. Obama is fundraising like crazy to try and keep up. Of course it matters. He would not be doing it otherwise. You guys are kidding yourselves if you think otherwise.

[pepper11]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Personal attack ads are less likely to work. "Obama is bad for economy" ads are independent of incumbancy.

[Person Man]

Has anyone won an election but had less money?

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Has anyone won an election but had less money?

Truman is the evident pick (and adds another apt parallel to 1948 ).

I think the money advantage does help give a boost in the polls, but eventually you reach a point of diminishing return. I don't think 7 ads for Romney versus 4 for Obama would prompt a swing voter to switch because "HE HAS MORE ADS!"

Spending on campaign infrastructure to rally volunteers and GOTV operations is a much more effective use of money IMO, and Obama has had Romney beat there the entire campaign.

[Holmes]

Has anyone won an election but had less money?

What? Obviously yes.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Personal attack ads are less likely to work. "Obama is bad for economy" ads are independent of incumbancy.

But it's not like a HUGE gap in fundraising. There's just a gap.
Plus the Romney ads will be running with a bunch of Super PAC Ads. Which means Romney could be attacking Obama on welfare, Rove on foreign policy, Koch on deficit etc. It's just a huge muddled mess.
The same thing happened to Bush in 2004, I believe he of outspent. But there was not one single overarching message. It was Democratic attacks on things from Iraq to the deficit. While the Bush 2004 campaign could focus on one thing: Killing Kerry

[J. J.]

Has anyone won an election but had less money?

Clinton 1992, I think.

[Likely Voter]

Well Gore won the PV with less $ than Bush

[RogueBeaver]

Presidential? Yes. If you want statewide examples- the CEO triplets in 2010.

[Mr. Morden]

Didn't Republicans consistently have enormous cash advantages in the post-war period, up until the public financing system for presidential elections was set up in the 1970s?  Once that public financing system was set up, then you had near parity between the parties in campaign spending on presidential elections for a few decades, but that's obviously broken down now.

[President von Cat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Personal attack ads are less likely to work. "Obama is bad for economy" ads are independent of incumbancy.

But those attacks are already played out. The public already knows the economy isn't great, and there's not much more that Romney can gain by relentlessly repeating it. Remember that the campaign had begun to be criticized for lack of inspiration and for being a one-note operation.

Perception of the economy is largely baked in, and negative ads about it aren't going to move the needle much, unless it is accompanied by an outside shock that leaves the economy clearly in shambles.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Seriously? You guys are arguing that the $100+ million cash advantage that Romney will have in the last 2 months is not going to help his cause? Yes, Obama has money, and yes he will have plenty of ads all the way to election day. But, Romney will have a lot more. He will be able to dwarf Obama on the air in the current swing states as well as expand the map to Wisco and PA.  When he does that, Obama's cash disadvantage will become a real campaign disadvantage.

Considering that Romney needed way more than a 3:2 money advantage to win primaries, it doesn't strike me as being that big a deal.  The main thing the money advantage lets Romney and the GOP do is twofold.

1.  It lets the GOP expand the playing field.  They can afford to spend money in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, New Jersey, Oregon. Minnesota, Maine.  Places where if Obama doesn't spend any money to respond, a Romney win is not unthinkable.

This is exactly what I said.  Obama will have to chose. Defend and take cash away for VA, OH etc...or don't defend and hope that WI and PA dont turn color. Money matters. Obama is fundraising like crazy to try and keep up. Of course it matters. He would not be doing it otherwise. You guys are kidding yourselves if you think otherwise.

Except he won't need to spend much on defense.  Even if Romney outspends Obama 10:1 in Michigan or Pennsylvania it's only likely to close the gap.  Plus Obama has enough of an EV cushion that with the possible exception of Pennsylvania, losing one of the fringe states won't matter.  And even Pennsylvania won't matter if Obama takes Florida.

[Lincoln Republican]

No wonder Obama is running around the country spending more time as Fundraiser in Chief than Commander in Chief.

[Sbane]

No wonder Obama is running around the country spending more time as Fundraiser in Chief than Commander in Chief.

So should Obama let himself be outspent by Romney? Maybe he should just declare the election over and crown Romney king?

[Mr. Morden]

Maybe he should just declare the election over and crown Romney king?

Winfield has already fantasized about this:

So I'm thinking Mitt may take two names as king, after two Presidents who consistently rate as two of the best and greatest Presidents in history, therefore, Mitt may decide on the title King Theodore Franklin I, which also adds a bipartisan flair to his new title.
Hmmm. 

[Lincoln Republican]

Maybe he should just declare the election over and crown Romney king?

Winfield has already fantasized about this:

So I'm thinking Mitt may take two names as king, after two Presidents who consistently rate as two of the best and greatest Presidents in history, therefore, Mitt may decide on the title King Theodore Franklin I, which also adds a bipartisan flair to his new title.
Hmmm. 

However do you come up with these gems?