Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-29-2012, 10:27 AM
 
665 posts, read 1,246,598 times
Reputation: 364

Advertisements

January's trend lines held through February, Mitt Romney's presidential campaign ran out of money two days ago.

The former Massachusetts governor announced Monday night that he had raised roughly $6.4 million in January. More significantly, however, he reported having only $7.7 million cash on hand -- which means that over the course of 31 days, his campaign spent approximately $18.7 million.

This is a remarkable burn rate for a campaign that appeared to be a well-oiled machine not too long ago. Each day in January, Romney spent an average of $603,225 and raised just $206,451, meaning he was spending $397,000 more than he was taking in. If the campaign continued to spend at that rate unabated, it would have burned through the remaining $7.7 million on Feb. 19.

Of course, campaigns make adjustments based on their budgets. And one of the reasons that Romney didn't spend more money advertising in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri is likely because he didn't have the funds to do so. In all, Romney spent $8.47 million on television advertisements in January, the equivalent of $270,967 a day. If he halved that total, it would have given him some more financial flexibility, but not much. Spending $135,500 on television advertisements every day in February -- while maintaining January expenditure levels on other items -- would result in Romney running out of cash on March 1.

Romney, in the end, has some major advantages over the competition. He has a well-funded allied super PAC, Restore Our Future, that has spent millions on television advertising on his behalf. He also has an enormous amount of personal wealth that he can donate to his presidential campaign, as he did in 2008.

If need be, there are several areas where Romney can trim the fat. According to the January filing, the biggest expenditure beyond "placed media" (TV ads) was the $2.2 million put toward printing and design services. The Romney campaign also spent just over $1.8 million on all forms of travel, including air, rail and fuel costs. More than $750,000 was spent on online advertising and $550,000 was spent on direct mail. Less could be spent on each of these things, especially travel and lodging, on which the Romney campaign appears to have splurged a bit.

One area where it may be tougher to cut spending is Romney's staff. His campaign spent $496,292 on "payroll" in January. Relative to other expenditures, it was at the higher end of the middle of the pack. Since the beginning of 2011, in fact, Romney has had 99 people on his campaign payroll, costing a total of more than $3.58 million. That number doesn't include the 50 people that Romney has paid for field, advance, research and communications consulting at a cost of $230,900. Since six of those people were also paid as staffers, the total number of people paid for "consulting" work by Romney is 44.

Compare that to the other campaigns. Since the beginning of 2011, Newt Gingrich has had 31 people on his payroll at a cost of $536,000 ($106,137 of that was spent in January). The former House Speaker has paid 61 people for various forms of consulting work (one of whom was a paid staffer at one point) at a cost of $461,457. Ironically, a good amount of that total was spent in January. The candidate who fired his consultants when his campaign originally floundered and pledged never to rely on that sort of work again spent $121,000 on consulting fees last month -- roughly $36,000 more than he has spent on staff in any month to date.

Rick Santorum is the most frugal of the three. The former Pennsylvania senator has had just 11 people on his "payroll" since the start of the campaign, at a total cost of $109,000. That doesn't include the money he pays to a consulting firm that employs most of his top aides, but it is still a pittance compared to Romney. Santorum spent just $24,282 on "payroll" in January. Since the start of the campaign, moreover, he has paid just 33 people for consulting work -- six of who also were paid as staffers at one point in time -- at a cost of $341,000.

what a weak canidate Romney is having to out spend millions of people om people
who have no money
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-29-2012, 10:29 AM
 
Location: New Hampshire
4,866 posts, read 5,697,776 times
Reputation: 3786
Yeah that looks like someone I want to run this county...

I like how Santorum is the most frugal of all 3. Wait where is the most frugal of them all? Ron Paul?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 10:32 AM
 
3,045 posts, read 3,204,199 times
Reputation: 1307
Normally I'd say that's a worry, but I'm sure that the PACs will get swamped with donor money once a candidate has won the primary. It should be interesting to see how things play out from the money side in the election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 11:30 AM
 
665 posts, read 1,246,598 times
Reputation: 364
how is romney going to beat obama if he is loosing to people who dont have any money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 11:45 AM
 
8,754 posts, read 10,211,455 times
Reputation: 1434
Money is not an issue for Mitt Romney and never has been...not now, not in the future. You can bank on that. This is propaganda and wishful thinking on the part of the poster, but not true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 11:54 AM
 
3,265 posts, read 3,209,373 times
Reputation: 1440
Romney self-financed in 2008; it was a given he'd eventually do it this time around as well. The Clinton campaign also did it. The key is postponing that moment as long as possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 11:58 AM
 
53 posts, read 34,280 times
Reputation: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptug101 View Post
This is a remarkable burn rate for a campaign that appeared to be a well-oiled machine not too long ago. Each day in January, Romney spent an average of $603,225 and raised just $206,451, meaning he was spending $397,000 more than he was taking in. If the campaign continued to spend at that rate unabated, it would have burned through the remaining $7.7 million on Feb. 19.
Too funny

BO will toy with this out-of-touch elitist.

Hell, cons should just forfeit the presidential election and try to regroup for 2016.

Poor party's such a fractured, smoldering mess at this point...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top