Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Republican Fundraising

Here is our review of Republican fundraising in alphabetical order (we once again waited a few days to look for all reports to come in).

Nick Reid - Cash on Hand $44,370

1st Quarter Raised $22,904 1st Quarter Spent $8783
Total Raised $58,498 Total Spent $16502
Candidate Loans $2374 (none this quarter)

David Robinson - Cash on Hand $5323

1st Quarter (and Total) Raised $4540
1st Quarter (and Total) Spent $9217
Candidate Loans $10,000

Jeff Tyberg - No Report Filed

Our Review:

Since Jeff Tyberg did not file a report, we must assume that in his one full year of campaigning for Congress, he has not raised nor spent $5,000 (because that is the FEC threshold for reporting). If he has, the FEC's lawyers will be in touch.

So, we are left to compare Nick Reid and Dave Robinson.

In this quarter alone, Reid itemized 5 times as many contributions (42 to 8) and had about two and a half times more unitemized (small donor) contributions.

Overall, Reid has raised from donors (i.e. excluding candidate loans) $56,000 while Robinson has rasied $4540, about 12 to 1.

Excluding candidate loans, Robinson is operating in the red by nearly $4700, while Reid is $42,000 in the black - a nearly $46,000 advantage for Reid.

Including loans (because it is after all money available to spend), Reid has banked 72% of everything he has taken in while Robinson has banked 37%.

Our Opinion:

We do not believe Reid's lead is insurmountable, but the evidence clearly indicates he is doing a better job at fundraising. Generally when you look at campaigns, fundraising is also a strong indicator of the strength of the candidate and his campaign. Because Reid has not yet hit $100,000 raised, it may be too early to call him the odds on favorite, but he appears to be the only candidate able to talk more than 10 people capable of giving over $200 (the FEC threshold for itemizing a contribution) into writing him a check.

Based on ability to raise money as of today, you have to say Reid stands the best chance to be competitive against Dave Obey in November.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've seen enough to say Robinson and Tyberg should drop out and see what Reid could do with a clear shot.

2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with red. It's time for one candidate to take a shot. I heard Robinson say he decided to run the day after the last election, and Tyberg announced last March. If between them they've raised $5000, it's time to hang it up.

9:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've heard Reid has former Attorney General Ed Meese coming in to do events for him next month. I bet he will raise more from those events than he did last quarter. I also bet he could get a lot more popular figures to come in and do events for him if the primary was cleared.

9:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ed Meese a big draw in Northwest Wisconsin? You've got to be joking. Nice try Reidites that "don't really run this blog." Methinks Nick spent a bit too much time in Washington and ah, thinks he knows what people in Wisconsin think. For crying out loud, he didn't even work for someone in the Wisconsin delegation.

8:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to the last post on whether Meese would be a draw/who Reid worked for -

Question: who have either of the other two candidates brought in to raise money for them?
Answer: nobody

Question: who did Congressman Paul Ryan work for in Washington?
Answer: Sam Brownback, ironically enough, from Kansas.

Methinks you should comment more intelligently next time.

8:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If it is "Reidites" running this blog, I don't care, it's just refreshing to have someone out there trying to help us rid ourselves of 37 years of bad representation. That commenter must be a Democrat . . . I bet you work for Obey don't you.

8:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

whoever posted that comment works for or is one of three people, Obey, Robinson or Tyberg. I mean if the poster can claim we're all a bunch of Reidites (aka realists), then they are clearly in one of those three camps and either liberally destructive, ineffective or clueless.

9:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home