Wednesday, April 16th, 2008...12:48 pm
Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer
Jump to Comments
Bob Lord’s vassals are touting his haul of $220,000 in his latest finance report, which out paces John Shadegg’s comparatively meager $150,000.
I guess that “Well, wait, I’m running after all” routine put a damper on Shadegg’s fundraising.
So much for that “incumbent advantage,” eh?
Am I smelling an upset here? Or is that just my new cologne?
12 Comments
April 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I could smell desperation when Shadegg was asking for $10, trying to hit his $300,000 goal.
He missed it by 50%!!!
April 16th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
That post has been defunct since 1880. Could have called him the First Lord of the Treasury too.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I could have called him Stephanie too.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Now that makes no sense at all Ted.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:15 am
C’mon Ted. Shadegg DID raise $210,516. He just had to give $59,800 of it back.
That counts, right?
I guess some donors don’t like an off-again, on-again relationship…
April 17th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Shaddeg will be able to raise more when his friends in Washington come to bat and to the rescue. A big advantage of incumbency.
Still what is worth saying is that Lord outraised him in the quarter and that he is catching up and keeping pace. He has $900K on hand to Lord’s $600K on hand now. That is pretty significant and helps a great deal when beating an incumbent.
Note that Bee raised a ton of money in the first quarter, but did not even catch up. He now is behind by well over a million.
Finally, take a look at the numbers for Ann Kirkpatrick versus Sidney Hay. She has $460k in the bank to Hay’s $220K. Note also that Hay is a mining industry lobbyist and should have been able to pull in a big bunch.
Finally again, take a look at Mitchell up in CD5. Mitchell has $1.1 Million. His closest challengers are Schweikert with $500K and Ogsbury with $350K…looks like a bloody battle gonna happen in that primary. Oh…and Ogsbury and Schweikert both loaned themselves $250K.
Whats the point? Dems still outraise GOP…massively.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:04 am
I was going to mention CD5, Kral, but didn’t want to get too off topic. Thanks for doing it for me…
Yeah! What is the deal with the massively deep pocketed GOP candidates in that district? Two semi-self financing candidates… should be entertaining. Too bad for them their primary is so late. I’m sure being broke a month before general election VBM against a well-financed opponent won’t be the most fun place to be.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
REALLY interesting points Andrew. Especially the potential impact on VBM. Thank you.
April 19th, 2008 at 8:43 am
krajmamajales:
when his friends in Washington come to bat and to the rescue.
Don’t count the Republican Congressional Committee in on that. As of the end of January they had to revise their cash-on-hand downward to $5.7 million in the bank (vs. $35 million for the Democratic Congressional Committee). One reason for the downward revision was the discovery that former Treasurer Chris Ward embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars. He was fired in January and left such a complicated tangle of records that it will be months before the Republican Congressional Committee even figures out exactly how much money they do have. It also makes it that much harder for them to raise money, when their donors learn that the money they gave last time may have gone to finance Ward’s lavish lifestyle instead of to elect candidates. (Awwwww……)
On top of that, the Republican Congressional Committee has been forced to dip into their meager reserves this week to run ads in a special election in Mississippi– in a district that President Bush carried by 25% in the 2004 election and which was formerly represented by Roger Wicker, who was appointed to fill the Senate vacancy created by Trent Lott’s retirement partly because the GOP figured it was one of the safest Republican districts in the nation. But a recent poll showed Democrat Travis Childers up by one over Republican Greg Davis, which is why the Republicans are wasting money in what should be a slam dunk race for them– if they lose it then it means there is no such thing as a ’safe’ Republican district this year.
And in another special election in a formerly Republican district in Louisiana the Democrat, Don Cayazoux, is also ahead of Republican Woody Jenkins by nine. But the RCC may not spend any money on that one because after spending it in Mississippi they can’t– if they spend much money now defending heavily conservative Republican districts in the deep South they will really be in trouble come November.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Very interesting post Eli. I had heard that the RNCC was going to be in trouble in fundraising but had no idea it was THAT bad!
Add to what you said, this:
They have to defend a host of open seats that used to be GOP due to retirements. They also have to defend some close seats here and there where they have the seats now. They have much more territory to defend than the DEMS do.
This is going to be an interesting year!
April 19th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
krajmajales:
It is that bad. Here is an article on the Ward scandal where it gives the figures I quoted in cash on hand:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/gop.probe/
I also wrote a post (which covers a lot of the material in my comment) that includes links to the Mississippi story and the Louisiana story in a national political blog called ‘coldheartedtruth’ of mixed viewpoints in which I have become one of the designated ‘liberal’ commentators.
http://coldheartedtruth.com/politics/index.php/2008/04/16/republican-congressional-committee-force?blog=17
April 21st, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Even better:
At the end of March, the funding gap grew
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2008/04/fec_reports_house_committees.html
it is still about a 6-to-1 ratio, but now Democrats lead $44 million cash on hand to $7.2 million for the Republicans.
Leave a Reply