WaPo: Edwards Needs Money to Remain Competitive

[DeepModem Mom]

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 19, 2004; Page A08


John Edwards's outside hopes of winning the Democratic nomination are starting to boil down to a critical question: Does the North Carolina senator have enough cash for the final dash?

While Edwards's chief rival, John F. Kerry, continues to build up a big lead in fundraising, Edwards has been scrambling to pull in enough money to remain competitive, if not go toe-to-toe with the Massachusetts senator, as the race rolls toward the 10-state Super Tuesday primaries March 2.

Money is always oxygen to primary candidates, but it has loomed ever larger in the primaries this year. The front-loaded nature of the Democratic race -- more contests have been scheduled earlier than ever -- has dictated more spending earlier. The result has been a relatively fast and expensive war of attrition. Yesterday, for example, former Vermont governor Howard Dean quit the race after having spent about $50 million, a record for a Democratic primary candidate.

Now the race enters what is potentially its last lap, with two major candidates left and some of the nation's most expensive advertising markets still to come in the Super Tuesday states of California, New York, Massachusetts and Ohio.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52738-2004Feb18.html

[robbedvoter]

1. Guys who voted for him in WI will provide it (those enthusiastic about W)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/WI/index.html


Voters who are satisfied with the Bush Administration:
52% Edwards, 23% Kerry

Voters who are enthusiastic about * Administration:
33% Edwards, 10% Kerry

Conservatives voted Edwards, pro-Iraq voted Edwards

Those who are looking to beat Bush:
28% Edwards, 59% Kerry.

[ShaneGR]

4. You mean 2% of the entire voting list yesterday?

That was the percentage of Edwards voters yesterday who were strong Bush backers.

Like me to post Clark's comments on how much he loves Bush? You know, the ones he gave at that Republican Fundraiser?

[krkaufman]

5. Where'd ya get the 2% number from?

From what I see in the exit polls, 7.8% of WI Dem Primary voters voted for Edwards -- who were either "satisfied" or "enthusiastic" about the Bush Admin. Considering that Edwards received 34% of the total vote, the percentage of Edwards voters who were pro-Bush is closer to 23%, not 2%.

Satisfied (12%): 50%

Edwards 6.0% (12% * 50%)
Enthusiastic (5%): 36%

Edwards 1.8% (5% * 36%)
Total Bush-fan percentages:

Edwards 7.8%

pro-Bush Edwards supporters = 23% (7.8% / 34%)

[spooky3]

2. He raised more than $300000 in the 12 hours after the WI primary.

[robbedvoter]

3. More bundled law firms?

"A study from the same group(Center for responsive Politics) showed Sen. John Edwards, who made his fortune as a trial attorney, has received much more in contributions from lawyers than any other senator, though he has been in the Senate only one term."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/31/elec04.prez.main/index.html

Donations to Sen. Edwards questioned
By Sam Dealey
http://www.hillnews.com/news/050703/edwards.aspx
Sen. John Edwards' presidential campaign finance documents show a pattern of giving by low-level employees at law firms, a number of whom appear to have limited financial resources and no prior record of political donations.
Records submitted to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show these individuals have often given $2,000 to the North Carolina Democrat, the maximum permitted by law.
In many instances, all the checks from a given firm arrived on the same day -- from partners, attorneys, and other support staff.
     
Some of these support staff have not voted in the past, and those who have voted include registered Republicans, according to public records on file with various county registrars of voting.
Edwards' campaign records also reveal that many of these individuals' spouses and relatives contributed the maximum on the same day. The Hill found many of them to be first-time givers. Some have no previous demonstrable interest in politics, while others appear to be active Republicans.