Hub Politics has a nice rundown with graphs (and anti-Dem cheap shots gratis, of course) of fundraising for August 1-15. Just to sum up — Patrick is raising a lot more money (a 10-1 ratio) and from many more donors, than Reilly or Gabrieli.
It’s hard to say how much this means, since you might well ask why anyone would cut Gabrieli a check — he plainly doesn’t need it. And we’ve been hearing about Reilly’s $4 million war chest since last year, and he’s been reasonably frugal with it until now. So they’re probably taken care of.
But insofar as the cash represents a degree of enthusiasm and energy around the campaign, the fundraising numbers say something. Patrick backers would indeed find it comforting to see it translate into poll numbers as well, and in September, the bucks and buzz have got to translate into votes. We’ll see what happens.
Update: I did some of my own cutting and pasting and summing from OCPF. Here are the totals since the convention (6/4 – present), presented with some data cleanup — getting rid of refunds, etc:
Patrick: $966,843.33
Reilly: $482,954.80
Gabrieli: $183,837.97 from people not named Chris Gabrieli.
So I think that’s a pretty accurate portrait of what’s happening. Is it a 10-1 blowout? No, but it’s decisive.
As a science and math guy, there are two problems with overly-interpreting that graph:
<
p>
1. Does 14 days a trend make? In a short sample size, you can find strange behavior. Did DP have a big fundraiser or three during a time period when Reilly was off gladhanding? Was Gabs dealing with family matters, including his mother?
<
p>
2. Does Gabs have strong voting support but not strong donations precisely because he is rich? I mean, if you’re a Gabs supporter, you might think: “My $50 is a drop in Gabs’ $15.36 million dollar ocean. I’d rather take the family out for pizza.” If so, Gabs’ willingness to dump oodles of his own money may be hurting his fundraising, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to be caught light in the wallet.
… and I think I said as much. If I were a die-hard Gabs supporter, I can’t imagine I’d cut him a check. It’s not a matter of his personal wealth — it’s a matter of his clear willingness to spend it.
<
p>
For #1, I’ve updated the post with numbers since the convention.
I’m not sure where’s the best place to put this, but I just wanted everyone to know I have some video of Chris Gabrieli from his “town hall forum” in Dedham on Thursday night if anyone is interested. You can find it at dedhamblog.blogspot.com. I hope you all find it informative.
I think you’ll find “Write a New Post” under “Menu” on the left side.
<
p>
(We try to keep comments on-topic with the post they’re attached to.)
It’s common knowledge that Deval has an extensive grassroots network which has been utilized for the gamut of campaign activities, including low-dollar fundraising through house parties and the internet. It’s common knowledge because that grassroots network has been repeatedly touted by the campaign and its supporters as the main selling point. So the enthusiasm and energy exhibited by the DP camp is no surprise. To me, it doesn’t seem like much has changed.
<
p>
The inference that campaign contributions are reflective of the level of support a campaign has can be misleading. A common belief shared by many Deval supporters on this blog is that Chris Gabrieli doesn’t have much grassroots support, a belief that will no doubt be reinforced by fundraising numbers. However, on the contrary, Gabrieli does have a strong grassroots effort, one that perhaps doesn’t get enough credit or recognition from its detractors, probably because the Gabrieli campaign doesn’t have to brag about it. Chris’s active and enthusiastic organization is doing all the same things all good campaigns do on the ground. Opponents would “misunderestimate” it at their own peril.
<
p>
Finally, since we are here to discuss fundraising numbers, I would add one last point. The fact that people are willing to contribute money to the Gabrieli campaign, despite his status as a self-financing multimillionaire, speaks volumes of the depth of their energy, enthusiasm, and dedication for a candidate who clearly doesn’t need to fundraise. Supporters of the other candidates should take notice and be concerned about that.
Some people contribute in order to have been a contributor, period. If you’re a lawyer who wants to be a judge, or a businessperson who wants to do business with the state, you just might write a check to Gabrieli, not to help him so much as to position yourself should he win.
<
p>
This happens, of course, with all the candidates to some degree. But it’s an alternative explanation to “energy, enthusiasm, and dedication for the candidate” for the phenomenon of people contributing to someone — Gabs — who clearly doesn’t need the money.
While you’re undoubtedly correct that there are those who will give in order to build capital should a candidate get elected, I find it highly cynical that the alternative explanation you posit would cast all Gabrieli donors in the same light. Those I know who have contributed to his campaign, including myself, aren’t looking for sinecures and clout. We’re supporting the candidate we believe to have the best ideas, the best and most relevant experience, and the best chance of winning the Corner Office.
But why do you think Reilly raked in so much money last year and the year before and now his contributions have fallen off dramatically? Might it have something to do with early “access” money to the perceived front-runner? That kind of money is now mostly looking for other recipients.
<
p>
Again, this phenomenon occurs among donors to Patrick and Healey too, maybe even Mihos. But please spare us your vision of hordes of zealous people who think Chris would be such a great governor that they write checks to him even though they know he doesn’t really need them. There aren’t that many Gabs donors, and some of them are bettors more than they are supporters.
Reilly’s a career politician who had cultivated connections everywhere over the course of years, front-runner or not. Now he’s in a self-afflicted free-fall, so of course the contributions have dwindled.
<
p>
Actually, I didn’t write anything about a vision of “hordes of zealous people” shoveling their money to Chris. I did write that those I know, including myself, were giving money to his campaign because we do believe in him, his record, and his message. Just want to make sure you understand that.
<
p>
The very notion that there are actually people out there that support Chris for reasons other than selfish or calculated ones must really shatter your pro-Deval paradigm, eh?