No one is enthusiastic about supporting McCain:
McCain, on the other hand, could only manage to bring in $15 million for the month -- including just $4 million from the grassroots -- moving his overall haul for 2008 to under $40 million. In other words, McCain couldn't raise in three months what Obama was able to raise just this past month alone (a fundraising month that actually represented a decline of more than a quarter from the previous month). Pitting McCain against Clinton, the Republican in three months took in just 70 percent of what the Democrat was able to bring in during just two months.
Obama raises more online every month than McCain raises in total. Clinton and Obama combined are raising about twelve times what McCain is raising in small donors. This might be the largest grassroots discrepancy ever seen in a presidential campaign.
Then again, not many people are enthusiastic about opposing McCain, either:
Despite the millions of dollars pooling around Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, anti-McCain funds have fallen far short of the hopes set in November, when a key organizer, Tom Matzzie, reportedly told The Washington Post that the "Fund for America" would raise more than $100 million to support the activities of a range of allied groups.
The Democratic National Committee, too, is organizing an anti-McCain campaign, but a spokeswoman, Karen Finney, said fundraising to support that effort has met "mixed" results.
So while news releases and Internet ads have been launched, the largest-bore weapon in contemporary politics - a sustained television campaign - hasn't. That's because, people involved say, the soft-money groups don't have the soft money.
The ad doesn't cite specifics, but such numbers are hard to come by for 501(c)4 and 527 groups. A useful proxy is to compare the DNC versus the RNC, since the founding purpose of both groups is to compete in the presidential general election. So far, in 2007-2008, while Democratic presidential candidate fundraising has swamped Republican presidential candidate fundraising, the RNC has raised $108M to the DNC's $67M. At least according to this example, Democrats are lagging in money to pursue an anti-Republican or pro-Democratic message in the general election. Our money seems to be pro-Obama or pro-Clinton, not anti-McCain or pro-Democrat.
All of this suggests a possibility I have been considering for some time: an open seat, general election campaign between Obama and McCain could result in turnout levels closer to 2000 (105M voters) than 2004 (123M voters). Despite massive primary turnout and the general upward trend in voter turnout across the country over the past six years, a general election lacking a clear villain for either side could reduce turnout. Even though the mood of the country is extremely negative, there is no incumbent. Further, both Obama and McCain have very high favorable ratings, including decent favorable ratings among members of the opposing party. Yet further, the ideological difference would appear less stark, as Obama campaigns on unity and bipartisanship, and as the media never stops calling McCain a maverick moderate. In short, the most important factor driving voter turnout--the belief that the outcome of the election really matters-might actually wane in 2008, despite the trends of the last six years.
Now, I could be wrong, and small donations are just one measure of voter excitement. For one thing, it is quite possible that as the election season drags on, as the focus turns to the general election, and as the independent expenditures heat up, both McCain and Obama will become far more polarizing figures. Second, perhaps the new Democratic focus of being pro-someone, rather than anti-someone, won't actually hurt turnout. Perhaps instead of coming out to vote against McCain, much like most Democrats came out to vote against Bush in 2004, this time around most Democrats and Democratic leaning independents will come out to vote for Obama. Further, there are indications that in 1992, Ross Perot drove turnout through the roof, as there were actually the same amount of voters in 1992 as there were in 2000 (and 1992 actually had far more voters than 1996). So, maybe the direct appeal to independents might help turnout.
However, I have to admit that there just doesn't seem to be as much excitement "on the street" about the general election as there was in 2004. Perhaps that is because the primary isn't quite over yet, and people haven't switched focus. Perhaps that is because it is still April, and the election is seven months away. Or, perhaps it is because Democrats and progressives just aren't as pumped up about beating McCain as we were about beating Bush four years ago. If the latter is the case, and I certainly think it is a strong possibility, I wouldn't be surprised if we failed to reach 120M voters in the general election this year.
|
STATE BLOGS
