• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Ranchers.net

News from the Votemaster
Dec. 12

Here is the national money race as of the most-recent FEC filings. The Democrats are way ahead in the Senate and House fundraising efforts and the DNC is way ahead of the RNC. The latter pot of money can be spent on anything, often the presidential race.

This money race was highlighted yesterday when Republican Bob Latta won a special election for Congress in OH-05, a solidly Republican district (PVI R+10), but the NRCC had to spend about $500,000, which it can ill-afford to spare, to hang onto this seat in very friendly territory. With $27 million in the bank, the DCCC could spend $500,000 in each of more than 50 districts. When you realize that the median amount of money current incumbents have raised so far is $400,000, you begin to appreciate the consequences of these numbers. In potentially close races, the DCCC could double the Democrat's cash; the NRCC is in no position to match this. Realizing this, Tom Cole has been looking for rich businessmen to run for Congress in the hopes they could pay for their own campaigns. The main problem with this strategy is that historically, an outsider who has never held public office generally fails in an attempt to buy a seat in Congress.

Now let's look at the presidential polling data. It's pretty hard to read the tea leaves at this point. The top three Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards all have a shot at winning Iowa and Clinton and Obama are pretty close in New Hampshire. But nationally, Clinton is still way ahead. She could definitely survive a loss in Iowa and also New Hampshire, but losses for Obama and Edwards in those two would be the end for them unless the biggest loser pulled out quickly after a New Hampshire loss and threw his support to the other one. All in all, Clinton is still holding up well.

On the Republican side, it's anybody's guess. It now looks like Mike Huckabee is heading towards a dramatic landslide win in Iowa. But being the darling of 20 or 30 thousand elderly, conservative, religious women in Iowa (what a Huckabee victory would represent) does not a President make. An equally dramatic loss to Romney in New Hampshire (or a surprise upset win there by McCain) would make it impossible to predict what's next.

It is rarely mentioned in the media, but Huckabee is, for all intents and purposes, broke. He had $603,000 net in his last filing report (Oct. 31). In contrast, look at what the other leading candidates had (net): Clinton ($48 million), Obama ($35 million), Edwards ($12 million), Giuliani ($17 million), McCain ($2 million), Thompson ($6 million), and Paul ($5 million). Romney had a net of -$8 million because he loaned himself $17 million, but unlike the other candidates, who eventually have to pay their debts back, he does not. In practical terms, what does Huckabee's finances mean? Well, for starters, he can't run TV ads anywhere expensive. He also flies everywhere cattle class on commercial airlines whereas the other candidates charter private jets. This difference is not only a matter of comfort, but if you are trying to make campaign stops in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina in the same day (to get on the local news in each state), that is well nigh impossible without your own plane. Of course, if Huckabee wins big in Iowa, which looks likely, the money will come rolling in.
Top