Posted on 07/02/2007 2:22:26 PM PDT by greyfoxx39
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who led Republican candidates in money raised during the first three months of the presidential race with $21 million, told top fundraisers yesterday that his campaign will bring in less during the second quarter and that he continues to lend money from his personal fortune to ensure that more voters hear his message.
-SNIP-
Campaign officials also said that Romney -- whose net worth is in the hundreds of millions -- made another seven-figure loan to his campaign this quarter, on top of the $2.4 million he gave to jump-start his effort at the end of last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Hey, Mitt, don’t look over your shoulder, because Fred’s already passed you without even declaring. Save your money, and hope to be appointed Treasury Secretary.
Well he is consistently leading in Massachusetts, Iowa, Utah, Michigan and New Hampshire, and on occasion in Nevada and California.
Mitt has a limited donor-base and they gave a lot up front. Nothing but downhill and dwindling from here. He’s going to have to spend a lot of his own money on this wild goose chase.
How 'bout some links?
Well he is consistently leading in Massachusetts, Iowa, Utah, Michigan and New Hampshire, and on occasion in Nevada and California.
Most of which are either “home” states (MA, NH, MI), significant Mormon states (UT, NV), or massive media buy states (IA, NH).
I tend to think that voter support buys cash better than cash buys votes.
Why is fundraising such big news? I hear that Obama raised more than Hillary this quarter too. But what does it really mean? Is it a P*ssing contest to try to impress people how much support a candidate has?
“Mitt’s millions spent on ads don’t seem to be reflected in the polls.”
He has only spent $2 million and is already leading in all of the early primary states. By years end he will have close to $100 million to spend.
Sure they do. See Romney in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.
Leading 3 of those. Second in SC.
The national polls don’t mean squat.
Still not enough to convince anyone he's a conservative.
“Mitt has a limited donor-base”
Check out his limited donor base here:
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?drillLevel=US&stateName=&cand_id=P80003353
Traditionally, good fundraising numbers would translate into high visibility and media exposure.
This may change in the future, though, if Fred Thompson wins the nomination through his "new media" based non-campaign.
Fred’s possible entrance and McCain’s flop seem to be sucking all of the air out from under Mitt’s balloon, strange really as there are months to go before non political junkies even start to notice that there are primaries upcoming.
McCain would give his left testicle to have Mitt’s cash on hand, so let’s not start shoveling the dirt on the grave just yet fellas...
Links?
>>Why is fundraising such big news?<<<
>>>Why is fundraising such big news? <<<
Namely because it signifies who is capable of running a national campaign when that time comes and setting the wheels into motion to garner support.
Campaigning is all about selling a product. And if your product isn’t being advertised, you’re not going to attract investors (because you’re not going to attract customers). It’s a cycle, really.
Making your name visible as people begin deciding on an election is pretty crucial to the result. See Bob Corker winning the Republican nomination for Senate in 2006. He beat out two more conservative Republicans because frankly, you never saw or heard from the other two except around sites like these. Meanwhile, Corker’s commercials and signs were everywhere. He beat them soundly, largely because he ran a far more effective campaign.
There seems to be a lot of resistance on this site (not specifically addressed to you) to the idea that campaigning is about selling a product. It absolutely is. And while money for advertising isn’t the only factor, it’s a huge one.
Romney leads in NH, IA and is a close second in SC. He also leads in Nevada.
Another link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1859796/posts
From Beelzebubba's post #7 Most of which are either “home” states (MA, NH, MI), significant Mormon states (UT, NV), or massive media buy states (IA, NH).
In Iowa, specifically, and IMO probably the most important, Fred is second, and more noticeable, the Intrade Realtime Quote shows Fred trailing by less than 3 points.
And Fred hasn't spent a cent in Iowa.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.