So what matters and what doesn't?
Presidential fundraising is not simply about who can court more rich people to write them a check. It's also about a candidate being able to convince regular people to part with one of their most precious resources: Money. At this early stage, a candidate who can do that has a pitch that works and a case that persuades people. In the long run, that is the name of the game when it comes to winning the nomination and the White House.
Below, a breakdown of what you should take from the fundraising hauls of the candidates who have released their numbers -- and a few notes on the candidates who haven't. (Note: The candidates are listed alphabetically by last name. Not every candidate has released their totals yet -- when they do, I will add them here.)
One of the main reasons Biden didn't enter the race in March was that he didn't want his first quarter fundraising totals compared to people like Sens. Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders, who had been raising money actively for most of the three-month period. There are some concerns that Biden's fundraising apparatus is too old-school -- reliant on major donors and bundlers -- to compete in the new small-dollar online donations world. If he enters the race, he'll have between then and June 30, the end of the second fundraising quarter, to prove those doubters wrong.
Pete Buttigieg
The South Bend mayor reported raising $7 million since establishing an exploratory committee to run for president in late January. That total came from 158,550 donors, with an average contribution of $36.35. Much of the fundraising jostling in a presidential race is about expectations, and at the start of the year, no one expected Buttigieg to come anywhere close to $7 million. No one.
After all, he was an unknown mayor of a smallish city. (Sorry, Notre Dame fans!) That Buttigieg convinced more than 150,000 people to donate to him in a period of time when he was at 1% (if that) in most polling on the race is remarkable. Buttigieg was the momentum candidate for much of the past month; his fundraising will do nothing to slow that momentum, and might even increase it.
Kamala Harris
Unlike Biden, Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Beto O'Rourke, Harris has never really raised huge sums of money for her campaigns in the past. In her 2016 Senate race, which she won easily, Harris raised just over $15 million. Which is $15 million more than I have ever raised, but is nowhere near the past fundraising totals of Warren ($40+ million raised in 2016) and O'Rourke ($80 million raised in 2018).
Given that context, Harris' $12 million first quarter is solid, if not spectacular. (She totaled 218,000 contributors during the period, and 98% of her donations were $100 or less.) Harris has a few things going for her that might have suggested her total could have been higher: She's from a donor-rich (and massive) state in California, and from the moment she entered the race, she was -- and is -- regarded as one of its frontrunners. My guess is that Harris now has her fundraising operation fully up and operational, and in the coming months, you will see her fundraising begin to match or even exceed some of the other candidates in the top tier.
Beto O'Rourke
The former Texas congressman is the one major candidate in the frontrunning pack -- Biden, Sanders and Harris are the others -- who has yet to release his numbers for the first quarter. O'Rourke raised a stunning $6.1 million in his first 24 hours as a candidate, but also got a bit later start on the hunt for cash than the other candidates who have already reported their totals. O'Rourke was only a candidate for two-ish weeks, meaning it could be tough for him to rival Sanders' haul. But expectations are still high, given that O'Rourke raised a stunning $79 million for his 2018 challenge to Sen. Ted Cruz (R).
Bernie Sanders
As expected, Sanders set the early pace in fundraising, with more than $18 million raised from 525,000 individual contributors who gave, on average, $20. Sanders has a massive existing list from his 2016 campaign, and in that race, demonstrated his appeal in the online giving world. (He raised an unbelievable $228 million for his primary against Hillary Clinton, a number that still boggles the mind.) Still, just because Sanders' number isn't surprising, it also shouldn't be taken for granted. Sanders' fundraising ability -- and the fact that he rarely if ever holds fundraisers to collect cash -- is a major advantage for his campaign as we move forward into the rest of this year and into 2020 when voters start voting.
Elizabeth Warren
Like O'Rourke, we've yet to hear how much the Massachusetts senator raised in the first three months of the year. Unlike O'Rourke, the news seems likely to not be good. Warren was the first major candidate into the 2020 race -- she entered the race at the tail end of 2018 -- and is someone who has raised huge sums of money for past races. (She brought in more than $42 million for her 2012 Senate win.)
But there are signs of trouble in Warren's world. Her campaign was slow to get off the ground as she struggled to put the controversy over her Native American heritage behind her. She raised just around $300,000 in her first 24 hours as a candidate, for example.
In late February, Warren announced that she would have nothing to do with major donors. Over the weekend, news broke that her campaign's finance director was leaving -- never a good sign. Warren's totals will be boosted somewhat by the $11 million she had sitting in her Senate account that she, presumably, transferred to the presidential over the last three months. Pay close attention to how much new money Warren has raised specially for her 2020 ambitions. That will tell the tale.
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Decoding the first 2020 presidential fundraising numbers"
Post a Comment