Mitt raised more than $5 million today?

posted at 9:24 pm on January 9, 2008 by Bryan

After a disappointing second place finish in New Hampshire? I guess rumors of Romney’s death have been greatly exaggerated. I think that makes him today’s biggest cash generator.

Today, in Boston, fundraisers and friends gathered and raised over 5 Million dollars for the Mitt campaign. Compare that to Hillary who raised $750,000 the day after her stunning victory.

By the way, they raised almost $110,000 out of Arizona alone! Does that top McCain’s total take.

Here’s the campaign’s official announcement of the haul. That is some major scratch. And for a guy who keeps coming in second. As Darth Vader might say, impressive.

But here’s the thing. I’ve been discussing the status of the candidacies with friends in email along with just surveying the landscape after New Hampshire. Mitt so far has two second place finishes in contested states and a first in Wyoming, which amounts to uncontested since he was the only candidate to have had any organization there. On paper, Romney is an impressive candidate if you go by his resume. No one else on either side can match him on experience outside and inside government, but experience isn’t everything. If it was, Obama wouldn’t even be in the hunt anymore. Ideas aren’t everything either, or Fred’s campaign would have more of a pulse. Thompson put out a serious plan to cut government spending today, but because his campaign lacks buzz, the plan didn’t generate much coverage. Fred’s impressive as an idea guy and someone who can cut the media down to size and I think he’d make a good commander in chief. Well, I think. He hasn’t run the best campaign, that’s for sure. But neither has Huckabee, who seems like a nice guy who tends to wing it more than is wise, and neither have McCain or Giuliani but one of these guys has to win it eventually.

The way I see things right now, we have three viable candidates and two secondary candidates. The former include McCain, Huckabee and Romney and in more or less that order even though Romney leads the delegate count. The secondary candidates right now have to be Giuliani and Thompson, in that order. They’re all facing various death scenarios; McCain doesn’t play well with the base and doesn’t have a lot of cash, while Huckabee seems to be getting locked into a niche candidacy and Romney just needs to pick up a real win somewhere or he may end up on life support no matter how much money he has. The danger for him is that by becoming locked in second place, he becomes a de facto second choice guy. That’s no way to get to the general election, where second place leaves you out of luck. But any of these three could win if things break the right way, and if a couple drop out it’s not impossible to see even Fred sneaking up and winning. But by staying in, they’re all sucking up various parts of the conservative base and leaving an opening for Giuliani to do well enough in the big states on Super Terrific Tuesday to win.

What I’m saying is, this thing is still wide open. With Romney picking up a huge chunk of cash today, he’s showing that his supporters aren’t dispirited and he’s not done yet.

Update: A point of comparison is probably worth tossing out. Wired has Hillary Clinton pulling in a little over $1.1 million since the NH primary, but that’s without any pitch. The Romney camp pulled its haul in as a National Call Day. He pulled in more than Hillary, but Hillary wasn’t making a special effort. So there’s that.

In the money game, most donors on both sides are tapped out, but the Democrats still seem to have an advantage in that their pool of donors remains larger than the Republicans.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Bryan on January 9, 2008 at 9:51 PM
At least from the Senior Citizen Mormon voters, having benefitted from the FDR public works, there is support for big government, especially as personal needs for social benefits are immediate and families are dispersed, no longer remaining in one community. The Mormon factor, unflinching support for authority without question and without recourse, is not to be ignored. An autocratic flipflopping POTUS backed with such nice people villifying his opponents is not desirable. IMO, public/personal experience is worth more than campaign promises. There are also many Mormon boomers whose parents were Democrat, and in joining the GOP to fit in with the financially affluent at church, align with RINOs, promoting the dissolution of the GOP, “re-inventing” by revision, Mitt’s forte. What one would expect to find as “conservative” is not necessarily so.

maverick muse on January 10, 2008 at 9:02 AM

Well said, whiskey_199. I totally agree.

If Fred can pull ahead, he’ll be my guy. He’s a true conservative with strong convictions and a strong spine. I don’t think we’d ever see him pander or kowtow. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll see him pull ahead at this point either (but I’d really love to be wrong). Fortunately, we have a strong contender in Mitt who is also conservative, as well as personable, moral, an proven effective leader, young and fit. And he has the funding to go the distance. I’d like to see him be our nominee. I would vote for McC or Huck if necessary, since either would be better than a Dem (though in some areas, not much), but honestly don’t believe we will nominate a Republican who is not a true conservative.

How cool would a Mitt / Fred ticket be — can you imagine the VP debate? Sweet.

eucher on January 10, 2008 at 9:14 AM

The Mormon factor, unflinching support for authority without question and without recourse,
maverick muse on January 10, 2008 at 9:02 AM

So, the Mormons are devout to a fault? I’m glad to see you finally say something that has a basis in reality.

The Mormons will certainly follow their Articles of Faith to a T.

12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Thanks for helping the people at HA who aren’t too sure about Mormons to realize they are decent law abiding folks who follow the rule of law and will support Mitt as the president and nothing else.

Kudos to you.

csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 9:18 AM

Bill C.

Mitt is strongly disliked by the supporters of McCain and Huckabee and has no chance of pulling them away. I believe Fred could if Romney dropped out. So despite having the huge money advantage Mitt has been unable to get past the antipathy towards him. The right thing to do would be to drop out. Only Fred can attract voters from McCain and Huckabee but he is hampered by the fact that Mitt is rich enough to keep his ads running.

Bill C on January 9, 2008 at 11:06 PM

I agree. Prettiness aside, Mitt is a divisive candidate. He would prove himself a conservative rather than RINO opportunist by throwing his support to the GOP platform rather than himself, and back Fred Thompson. Mitt would perform magnificently in the Thompson Cabinet and prove his loyalty to the GOP platform. In a subsequent election with a proven conservative record Mitt would then win.

Jan.10. Romney Pulls Ads from SC&FL By Jim Kuhnhenn and Glen Johnson, AP:
To a person, his financial supporters are “incredibly optimistic” because Mitt’s going to reimburse their money is he loses.

Spencer Zwick, Romney’s national finance director, told the phone bankers: “If for some reason he is not the nominee, all those funds will be returned to the donor himself.”

With Mitt’s guarantee, exactly what promises has Mitt made to those phone bankers should he win the election? Carefully observe this creative finance wizard of pay off. No voo-doo economics.

maverick muse on January 10, 2008 at 9:26 AM

I don’t think $400,000 per year is enough for spending billions to win.

right2bright on January 10, 2008 at 8:45 AM

Mitt is financially funded by CEO’s and international corporations who are requiring, as it appears, his guarantee of either a win (and their future pay-offs) or his guarantee of financial reimbursement of their donations should he lose. Where the hell did refund define investment?

NUTS TO REFUND MENTALITY!

Fred Thompson is financially funded by individual American citizens who are requiring only that our POTUS hold firmly the conservative GOP platform during tenure.

FRED, POTUS!

maverick muse on January 10, 2008 at 9:41 AM

Mitt is a divisive candidate.
maverick muse on January 10, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Yes, he is so divisive that he has more votes, more delegates, and more broad base support in every contest to date.

divisive: creating dissension or discord.

Considering McCain and Huck are the ones who have themselves or their mother have attack Mitt on his religion, it is clear you have adopted the Ron Paul meme of laying blame. We are at fault for terrorism and Mitt is at fault because he’s a Mormon.

Nice.

csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 10:05 AM

If this site is right, these numbers are not what I had expected.

MT on January 10, 2008 at 10:09 AM

Something smells fishy here- I wonder how much of that $5 million came out of Mitt’s own pocket.

Hollowpoint on January 10, 2008 at 11:21 AM

But here’s the thing. I’ve been discussing the status of the candidacies with friends in email along with just surveying the landscape after New Hampshire. Mitt so far has two second place finishes in contested states and a first in Wyoming, which amounts to uncontested since he was the only candidate to have had any organization there.

So what? The fact that Mitt had an organization out there is a credit to his campaign account not a debit. And, yes, Iowa & New Hampshire were both “contested” but neither one was particularly representative of the national mindset. What is the big damn hurry here? Bigger & far more significant primaries are coming up shortly. Why this rush to write Mitt off ASAP? This is starting to chap my hide.

On paper, Romney is an impressive candidate if you go by his resume. No one else on either side can match him on experience outside and inside government, but experience isn’t everything.

No, but executive experience (or at least potential) is (or should be) of massive importance in choosing a president.

If it was, Obama wouldn’t even be in the hunt anymore.

This is America’s pity, not Mitt’s.

Ideas aren’t everything either, or Fred’s campaign would have more of a pulse. Thompson put out a serious plan to cut government spending today, but because his campaign lacks buzz, the plan didn’t generate much coverage. Fred’s impressive as an idea guy and someone who can cut the media down to size and I think he’d make a good commander in chief. Well, I think. He hasn’t run the best campaign, that’s for sure. But neither has Huckabee, who seems like a nice guy who tends to wing it more than is wise, and neither have McCain or Giuliani but one of these guys has to win it eventually.

#1. Fred is getting no “buzz” because neither the MSM nor the right-wing punditry wants it. They have deemed Fred to be “too slow” and “too sleepy” and that’s that. To hell with what voters might think about it if they were in charge of dishing out coverage.

#2. Similarly, media elites are not interested in ideas. They want drama. And image & personality are far more conducive to drama than substance is — especially given the (presumed and/or actual) short attention spans of nightly news consumers.

#3. Given as much, Huckabee has, in fact, run a masterful campaign. He has eschewed substance; he has refused to address the points of the policy criticisms that have been made of him; he has avoided tough interview forums; his appeal for votes is based on emotion not intellect. And he (like Obama) has done quite well by it.

So tell me again, why should Mitt drop out?

argos on January 10, 2008 at 11:32 AM

THERE was a man in our town, and he was wondrous rich;
He gave away his millions to the colleges and sich;
And people cried: “The hypocrite! He ought to understand
The ones who really need him are the children of this land.”
When Andrew Croesus built a home for children who were sick,
The people said they rather thought he did it as a trick,
And writers said: “He thinks about the drooping girls and boys,
But what about conditions with the men whom he employs?”
There was a man in our town who said that he would share
His profits with his laborers, for that was only fair,
And people said: “Oh, isn’t he the shrewd and foxy gent?
It cost him next to nothing for that free advertisement.”
There was a man in our town who had the perfect plan
To do away with poverty and other ills of man,
But he feared the public jeering, and the folks who would defame him,
So he never told the plan he had, and I can hardly blame him.

Franklin Pierce Adams,

csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 12:14 PM

I guess people in America can do whatever the heck they want with their money, but if you look at Mitt Romney’s dollar-per-vote ratio, his campaign is a worse investment than an Iranian pig farm.

But I guess the herd instinct is still alive and well in the human genome: “By golly, if that rich guy keeps throwing his own money into a sinkhole, it’s GOT to be a good idea. C’mon Ethel, get me the checkbook!”

logis on January 10, 2008 at 11:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2