By Reid Wilson
On the surface, the RNC's financial problems aren't that bad. Yes, the party is raising less than it has in previous years, but they don't control the WH or Congress. And with a little more than $8M on hand after debts, the RNC actually has more to spend than the DNC, which has just over $7M after accounting for debts.
But those broad numbers don't tell the real story -- that since the beginning of '09, Dems have been investing millions of dollars in state parties, bolstering a ground game with which the GOP cannot compete. The monetary advantage Dems have spent more than a year and a half building has GOP strategists worried that Dems have already laid an important foundation in critical seats.
In the last 18 months, the DNC, the DCCC and the DSCC have invested more than $18.8M in state parties across the country. By comparison, the RNC, the NRCC and the NRSC have spent just under $10M, according to data compiled by the FEC.
<...>
Then again, when Dems invest in key races, they don't always win. GOPers won governors races in VA and NJ, and they won Brown's seat in MA. But in both GOV races, the GOP outspent Dems. Though the RNC only sent $13K to NJ on behalf of Gov. Chris Christie (R), far less than the $3M the DNC sent, the RGA augmented that money with $7M of its own. And in VA, the RNC spent more than $2M more than the DNC did on behalf of their nominee.
In places where Dems have been able to outspend their GOP counterparts, Dems have taken home the win. Dems have sent mor than $840K to NY, where the party won special elections in GOP-leaning districts held by Reps. Scott Murphy (D) and Bill Owens (D), while the GOP sent a relatively skimpy $470K. In PA, Rep. Mark Critz (D) won a special election with the help of more than $1.2M in DNC and DCCC investments to the state party. That was much more than the $741K the RNC has sent to the Keystone State already.
more
PDF
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
