« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Reviewing the June fundraising numbers.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  July 20th, 2009 at 09:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Short version: the Democrats had a good month in their Congressional/Senatorial Committee fundraising (double their previous month’s totals, as well as double their Republican counterparts); the RNC is back to outraising the DNC; cash on hand is at parity, except that the GOP is running with a debt that’s 1/10th of their total and the Democrats are running with one that’s half; and this is all very different than this time in 2007.

Raised CoH Debts
RNC 8.00 23.70 0.00
DNC 6.75 13.03 4.91
NRSC 3.40 4.30 0.00
DSCC 6.20 7.90 3.70
NRCC 3.14 4.16 3.25
DCCC 7.10 9.70 6.00
GOP 14.54 32.16 3.25
Dem 20.05 30.63 14.61


Compare to last month’s:

Raised CoH Debt
RNC 5.82 21.55 0.00
DNC 8.37 12.14 5.60
NRSC 3.50 3.70 0.00
DSCC 3.45 4.00 4.17
NRCC 3.24 3.73 4.00
DCCC 3.44 5.01 6.67
GOP 12.56 28.98 4.00
Democrats 15.26 21.15 16.44

…the first thing that leaps out is that the DCCC/DSCC had a good month; enough of one to put the Democrats within rough parity with the GOP with regard to cash-on-hand… if you ignore the debt problem, which they really should be thinking about getting rid of pretty soon now.  The RNC is a bright spot: between its good numbers and existing war chest the GOP isn’t in danger of running out of money any time soon.  This wasn’t the best month for the Republicans, obviously: but that will happen.  If that bugs you, there’s an easy solution to that, too: RNC, NRCC, NRSC.

If you’re curious: this was the situation at this point in 2007 (via six month data here).

CoH Debts
RNC 15.90 0.00
DNC 4.67 2.00
NRSC 5.76 0.00
DSCC 20.36 4.50
NRCC 2.01 4.35
DCCC 19.50 4.14
GOP 23.67 4.35
Dem 44.53 10.64

The numbers themselves are going to be skewed: there was a lot more money being thrown around in general (and more money to be thrown around), after all. Even so, we aren’t getting dominated in the money game like we were back then.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tags: , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • eliminatedebt

    Because they have more people in Congress. Much of DCCC NRCC and DSCC and NRSC funds come from the campaign war chests, many times in exchange for something from the leadership. I’m only surprised that the DSCC hasn’t raised more, considering Kerry, Baucus, Harkin, and Bayh (to name a few) have massive war chests to share.

    Shelby has a massive war chest too, over 12M if I recall. Lets hope he will be generous for us, as he will coast to re-election.

  • redtillimdead

    They endorsed Toomey atleast

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’d rather give my attention to the NRCC until the NRSC mends its ways though.

  • eliminatedebt

    I feel like something gets lost between a party committee and its transfer to a candidate. Unnecessary overhead.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …there’s going to be a finite pool anyway. But a lot of the candidates that have been recruited to take on Democratic squatters in Republican seats are going to be primarily (pardon the pun) supported by the NRCC.

  • naraht

    This year seems to have less obvious squatters than either 2012 and 2014…

    The ones that jump out are Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Byron Dorgan (ND) and maybe Harry Reid (NV)

    The other vulnerable Democratic Senators: Burris (IL), Dodd (CT), Michael Bennett (CO), and Kaufman (DE) don’t seem like squatters (at least to me).

    I’m not sure how much help John Hoeven (If he gets in) will need in North Dakota, he’s got Statewide recognition and its a *really* cheap state to advertise in. So I think the main NRCC funding is going to be Kim Hendrin in Arkansas and whoever comes out of the Nevada primary

    In 2012, I’d definitely count Tester (MT), Conrad (ND), Nelson (NE) and Webb (VA) as Squaters. (Maybe Nelson (FL) too)

    In 2014, I’d definitely count Begich (AK), Baucus (MT), Tim Johnson (SD), Pryor (AR), Landrieu (AR), Warner (VA) and Hagan (NC)

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    But the NRCC can do the kind of strategery that most of us don’t have the resources to follow conveniently.

    And the House will be easier to win in 2010, too.

  • naraht

    By the time things are all sorted out by September 2010, both the NRSC and its counterpart are only really going to be watching 10 seats max. The NRCC, OTOH will be following 40-50.

    As I’ve said in another posting, the Republicans taking back the Senate in 2010 will require a bigger wave than 1994 (where the 8 seat gain on election day included 4 open Dem seats and 3 who’d been in office for less than a full term).

    The House on the other hand can shift faster and with 2006 and 2008 both going in one direction, you’ve got some freshman and sophmore dems in seats that are *very* challengable.

    OTOH, in the short term a gain of +2 in the Senate getting back the filibuster is probably more valuable than a 10-15 seat gain in the house (taking the Dem majority back down to 60-80)

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I do expect us to *win* the Senate election. But with only 1/3 of the seats up, that’s just not going to be enough to win the body.

  • naraht

    At this point, to win the body, the Republicans would have to gain 11 seats (with Biden breaking ties at 50-50). There are only 18 Democrats up for Election in 2010. I’m not sure when the last time that a party lost more than half the seats that it had up for election, but its been a *long* time. (Wasn’t true in either 1994 or 1974, might have to go back to the 1930s.)