derek gulbranson

Maybe the money game isn’t a money game?

Hillary's web site today, in addition to her "Help Make History" banner which was taken down during the race spat, sports a new banner reading "You Did It," referring to raising $10M since Super Tuesday. (Her web site doesn't mention if that includes the $5M she gave herself (great spin, btw), but it does say it's from 100,000+ donors. I can't imagine that she wouldn't include her own donation though.)

The Barack campaign sends me an email with a little graphic that updates to show the latest fund-raising total since Super Tuesday. Currently it shows $7.5M from 350,000+ donors.

Hillary - $10M from 100,000+
Barack - $7.5M from 350,000+

So who wins? In 2004, 95% of the House races and 91% of the Senate races went to the candidate that spent the most money, but that's not really what we've seen in this race so far, Romney is a great example and Huckabee has done well without much money.

OpenSecrets reports that the cost of this race has already outspent any previous presidential race. But people give money to candidates expecting them to spend it on their campaign, so maybe that's just indicative of so many people becoming interested and involved in these campaigns? Maybe the increasing amount of money spent is due to the increasing dissatisfaction people feel with our current administration.

Perhaps number of donors will become a new metric? Average donation per donor would be interesting too.