Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   Trump's high fundraising $ numbers - is it going to make any practical difference? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=878087)

Velocity 07-02-2019 04:37 PM

Trump's high fundraising $ numbers - is it going to make any practical difference?
 
Trump has been drawing in staggering sums of donations, according to Yahoo News, blowing past previous records for campaign fundraising.

More money is always better than less for a campaign, of course, but ISTM that Trump is such a deeply polarizing and unpopular candidate that money won't matter. He didn't need it to win office in 2016, and having it won't help him keep office in 2020. All the $$$$ in the world might not convince any significant number of voters to change minds this upcoming year. The only thing the money might do for his campaign is simply to pay the bills and keep the machine going.

elbows 07-02-2019 06:16 PM

I’m pretty sure he’s going to find a way to wildly overcharge his campaign for every function and event, of course in Trump venues!

I’m sorry, but I gotta believe he’s already figured out a way to launder that money into his pockets.

DinoR 07-02-2019 07:14 PM

It probably won't make much if any difference. A look from 538 is a good intro with lots of links in there. The research does show things like the winners typically outspend the losers. Going past the simple correlation money seems to have diminishing returns. Some of the correlation is probably just those that look like they will win attracting more money to spend. Having enough money to get your name and message out seems to matter a lot. Once you have enough more isn't bad but it doesn't seem to make a big difference.

Trump beat both of the two big fundraisers from last Presidential cycle - Bush and Clinton. He's got the incumbent advantage now and plays it in ways that we haven't seen before through social media. He tweets ...a lot. Pretty much everything he tweets gets widespread media coverage. He's already taking shots at anyone who looks like they might be gaining traction in the Democratic primary field. We can expect him to still hold his large campaign rallies and get extensive coverage from every single one off them. Those are pretty cheap and can even be net positive money wise if they get enough small donor contributions from the large audience. He's also going to have the money to spend heavily on all kinds of things during the campaign.

Battleground areas will probably be awash in media buys. Some of the states he won in the midwest were very close. Michigan went his way by IIRC about a quarter percent of the vote. He might be able to spend his way out of a couple tight spots and just barely win a state as a result of massive fundraising. That's really about the limit of what massive fundraising and spending can do.

Heffalump and Roo 07-05-2019 07:25 PM

I saw this article today. Until March 30, Trump spent more money on Facebook ads than all the 23 Democratic candidates combined.

After March 30, the candidates as a total overtook him, but his total is still more than any other candidate.

Trump spent $4.9M on Facebook ads targeted to women over 55.

The Democratic candidates combined spent $9.6M on Facebook ads to May 18.

Trump has been using the tactic of getting people to send a birthday greeting to him or his wife in order to get the potential donor's email address, zip code and name.

How Trump Is Outspending Every 2020 Democrat on Facebook


Will that help Trump reach his demographic? I don't know, but I think money is helpful with that. It has helped some of the Democratic candidates.

Little Nemo 07-05-2019 07:37 PM

He's spending a substantial amount of his campaign funds on legal expenses.

Icarus 07-05-2019 07:41 PM

No cites, but I seem to recall that he was actually very underfunded last time, and still won. Maybe this time he'll spend oodles and it will have the opposite effect?

Aspidistra 07-05-2019 09:24 PM

Where's the money coming from? Citizens, corporations, or Kremlin-via-the-NRA?

Velocity 10-02-2019 03:19 PM

Trump and the RNC raised $125 million in Q3.

JohnT 10-02-2019 03:55 PM

These are people who took a sharpie to a weather map, I trust their fund-raising numbers as far as I can throw them.

Icarus 10-02-2019 04:22 PM

I think a useful metric for comparison would be how much did Obama get in fundraising at a similar point in his re-election cycle, as compared to the overall GOP?

Comparing to 2016 isn't as meaningful because the GOP was splitting their money among the multiple candidates at this point. Whereas the DEMs were also splitting somewhat between Hillary and Bernie. In a re-election cycle it's somewhat easier to attract large numbers because there is only one place for the money to go, and a pre-existing base.

As to Trump not having as much money in 2016, I recall that his campaign was not a well-oiled machine, full of experienced campaign hands, like other big party campaigns usually are. Add to that that some percentage of the GOP wasn't yet on board for him, and thought he was probably going to lose anyway. Now, however, the money is flowing because his support is more solid and he has established that he can win.

Velocity 10-02-2019 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarus (Post 21894279)
I think a useful metric for comparison would be how much did Obama get in fundraising at a similar point in his re-election cycle, as compared to the overall GOP?

IIRC, Obama raised $70 million in Q3 of 2011, prior to his reelection year. Adjusted for inflation, that is roughly half of Trump's current Q3 reported fundraising.

Icarus 10-02-2019 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21894303)
IIRC, Obama raised $70 million in Q3 of 2011, prior to his reelection year. Adjusted for inflation, that is roughly half of Trump's current Q3 reported fundraising.

Good to know. Without some deep polling, it's tough to say why we're seeing such money enthusiasm for Trump. Perhaps the wealthy are seeing the Bernie/Warren brigade seeming to want to tear down capitalism, so there is enthusiasm from that sector to bolster Trump.

Velocity 10-02-2019 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarus (Post 21894402)
Good to know. Without some deep polling, it's tough to say why we're seeing such money enthusiasm for Trump. Perhaps the wealthy are seeing the Bernie/Warren brigade seeming to want to tear down capitalism, so there is enthusiasm from that sector to bolster Trump.

My WAG is that it's because Trump is the sole Republican candidate while the Democrats are still divvied up among 19 contenders, and also that politics has simply become far more intense and emotional these days compared to eight years ago in 2011. Trump is able to get a lot more people donating to him just because of all the rage from and in both sides.

octopus 10-02-2019 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarus (Post 21894402)
Good to know. Without some deep polling, it's tough to say why we're seeing such money enthusiasm for Trump. Perhaps the wealthy are seeing the Bernie/Warren brigade seeming to want to tear down capitalism, so there is enthusiasm from that sector to bolster Trump.

That could be it. It’d be much cheaper to support Trump than deal with a high wealth tax. Especially since that 2% will soon by 30+% if the income tax is any guide.

Kimera757 10-02-2019 05:43 PM

I really wish I could find this article... One I read a few years ago, about how being "crazy" impacted a politician's numbers. Being "crazy" increased your fundraising, but increased that of your opponents even more. (And they had a specific definition of "crazy". Every politician got called crazy. The ones called "batshit" were associated with this phenomenon. The prime example? Michele Bachmann.)

Trump is charismatic, and has surprisingly high Republican loyalty, but I don't think the money means all that much anyway. Trump didn't raise that much money during the 2016 election, compared to Clinton. He still won. I think Obama outraised McCain (himself a very rich guy) but was in turn outraised by Romney. Obama spent his money more wisely (getting early advertising, despite the risk that Romney would swamp him on air in the latter part of the election).

bengangmo 10-02-2019 05:45 PM

What happens to the money if Trump[ is impeached?

JohnT 10-02-2019 05:50 PM

Total Dem fundraising #'s are ~$74 million, w/o Biden, Warren, or Beto announcing yet.

Trumps numbers include the RNC and something called "joint fundraising committees" (which sounds as legal as Enron's Special Purpose Business Entities, tbh).

Assuming this # is true, I don't see any concern here. Biden & Warren should clear $20 million easily, Beto... $8? $10? (He got a LOT of donations after the shooting).

Time, and more announcements, will tell.

Icarus 10-02-2019 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnT (Post 21894431)
Trumps numbers include the RNC and something called "joint fundraising committees" (which sounds as legal as Enron's Special Purpose Business Entities, tbh).

This is a fair point also, pretty much any information that comes out of the Trump orbit must be taken with an Everest sized grain of salt. So, the numbers could be made up of anything, anything at all.

Zakalwe 10-02-2019 07:33 PM

Don't fool yourselves. Trump & Co raised every fucking penny of that (and probably more in unreported dark money that they can plausibly claim to not control - cause that would be illegal). AND, while he'll spend over market value at venues that put money in his pocket, a HUGE amount of that money will go to micro-targeted online ads and will be effective.

This is an old school street fight. Trump is, in his mind, literally fighting for his life here. There are no boundaries and there is no limit.

We *should* be okay, but I worry constantly. Trump's base are easily motivated and ridiculously loyal.

Little Nemo 10-02-2019 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bengangmo (Post 21894424)
What happens to the money if Trump is impeached?

He has choices. He can donate an unlimited amount of unused campaign funds to a charity. He can donate an unlimited amount to a political party (I'd assume the Republicans in Trump's case). He can donate up to two thousand dollars each to other candidates' campaign funds. And he can donate up to five thousand dollars each to PAC's.

He's not allowed to keep any unused campaign funds for his own personal use.

AK84 10-02-2019 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bengangmo (Post 21894424)
What happens to the money if Trump[ is impeached?

Nothing. Trump remains President. Until Senate votes by 2/3 to remove him **and** bar him from future office. (Later might only need a simple majority).

enalzi 10-03-2019 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 21894810)
He can donate an unlimited amount of unused campaign funds to a charity.

"The Trump Fund. Money... for Trump."

Jophiel 10-03-2019 10:19 AM

After a point, I think you have less things to spend it on that make any difference. Remember when the Obama campaign bought a cable channel to run his ad 24/7 and was discussing buying ad time on those gas station pump monitors? They literally had more money than they knew what to do with.

BobLibDem 10-03-2019 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zakalwe (Post 21894622)
Trump's base are easily motivated and ridiculously loyal.

True enough, but what are they going to do, vote twice? I believe every vote that he is going to get in 2020 is solidly in his column already. He isn't going to gain any new voters (save those coming of age in the time between elections). He could spend zero and he could spent a trillion dollars and wind up with very close to the same total. All he can do is attempt to smear his opponent and make him/her unacceptable.

Velocity 10-03-2019 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jophiel (Post 21895515)
After a point, I think you have less things to spend it on that make any difference. Remember when the Obama campaign bought a cable channel to run his ad 24/7 and was discussing buying ad time on those gas station pump monitors? They literally had more money than they knew what to do with.

I don't think you can hit a point where "you have more money than you know what to do with." I used to work on a political campaign in California. Now, I don't know how a national campaign differs from a state/local campaign, but presumably, you can hire thousands of employees for your campaign to go door-to-door in swing states to get out the vote, lobby voters, persuade people, make phone calls, etc. If you pay each employee a hefty salary (say, $50,000 a year, which is a lot more than they'd probably get in real life,) that's already $50 million for a thousand workers. Think of how many millions of Americans in swing states would have to be reached, called, told to get out to vote, etc. and you need a lot more workers than that.

dalej42 10-06-2019 11:21 AM

Actually, I’d love to see Trump raise as much as possible and crowd out the down ballot candidates.

It’ll be interesting to see how he runs his campaign. Remember, in 2016, Trump barely went west of the Mississippi in order to be back in NYC for the night. Now, it’s true that most of the battleground states are east of the Mississippi but an incumbent president can certainly boost the down ballot candidates a lot more than a controversial nominee could in 2016z

dalej42 10-06-2019 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21895570)
I don't think you can hit a point where "you have more money than you know what to do with." I used to work on a political campaign in California. Now, I don't know how a national campaign differs from a state/local campaign, but presumably, you can hire thousands of employees for your campaign to go door-to-door in swing states to get out the vote, lobby voters, persuade people, make phone calls, etc. If you pay each employee a hefty salary (say, $50,000 a year, which is a lot more than they'd probably get in real life,) that's already $50 million for a thousand workers. Think of how many millions of Americans in swing states would have to be reached, called, told to get out to vote, etc. and you need a lot more workers than that.

An interesting point about Trump is that his base is heavily rural and that makes it much harder to canvass as they’re so spread out. Relying on a volunteer who has to drive around rural Iowa during a 2 hour volunteer shift means you’re simply not reaching many voters during that time. Whereas if I canvass for Pete in my very densely populated neighborhood in Chicago, I can reach a lot of voters in that 2 hour volunteer shift. So, I can imagine Trump needing more paid staff that are willing to work 40 hours a week.

Fentoine Lum 10-06-2019 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarus (Post 21734600)
No cites, but I seem to recall that he was actually very underfunded last time, and still won. Maybe this time he'll spend oodles and it will have the opposite effect?

I think we all pretty much know how closely funding tracks with "winning" elections over time in america.

Fentoine Lum 10-06-2019 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalej42 (Post 21900971)
An interesting point about Trump is that his base is heavily rural and that makes it much harder to canvass as they’re so spread out. Relying on a volunteer who has to drive around rural Iowa during a 2 hour volunteer shift means you’re simply not reaching many voters during that time. Whereas if I canvass for Pete in my very densely populated neighborhood in Chicago, I can reach a lot of voters in that 2 hour volunteer shift. So, I can imagine Trump needing more paid staff that are willing to work 40 hours a week.

May need to hire "illegals" like he and Ivanka do in their other scams.

RioRico 10-07-2019 03:49 PM

Wage-slave Trampsters send contributions to a self-proclaimed billionaire... who raised their taxes via tariffs and twice tweeted, "Confiscate guns first, due process later".

Am I justified in questioning many citizens' IQ and sanity?

Euphonious Polemic 10-07-2019 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RioRico (Post 21903446)
Wage-slave Trampsters send contributions to a self-proclaimed billionaire... who raised their taxes via tariffs and twice tweeted, "Confiscate guns first, due process later".

Am I justified in questioning many citizens' IQ and sanity?

There are many examples of cults out there. Some of them have had such a strong grip on their members that they have committed mass suicide at the urging of the leader.

This is how strong a cult can be. Don't underestimate it's power.

Boycott 10-07-2019 04:59 PM

According to Trump, Hunter Biden has $1.5 billion from the Chinese government so I'm sure he can lend his dad a bit!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.