The Daily Caller makes hilarious use of Karl Rove’s analysis comparing the spending rates for the Bush and Obama reelection campaigns.
But there’s plenty of evidence that the campaign isn’t bringing in as much money as it wants.
For example, data from the campaign’s earlier quarterly reports to the Federal Election Commission show that Obama’s spending is growing faster than revenues.
“The Obama campaign’s high burn rate doesn’t come from large television buys, phone banks or mail programs that could be immediately stopped … [but] from huge fixed costs for a big staff and higher-than-expected fund-raising outlays,” according to a March 14 article by Karl Rove, chief political strategist for George W. Bush.
In the second quarter of 2011, Obama’s “campaign spent 25% of what it raised… while Mr. Bush’s campaign spent only 9% in the second quarter of 2003,” Rove said. Since then, the spending pace has accelerated, he said, pointing out that in January “the Obama campaign spent 158% of what it raised, while the Bush campaign spent 60% in January 2004.”
Also, his supporters initially predicted a $1 billion reelection fund, but campaign staffers are quick to deny that is a goal.
Rove argues that one reason the re-election campaign might be running lighter-than-expected on cash is that many of Obama’s 2008 supporters are not opening their checkbooks this time around.
Spending growing faster than revenues (158%!). Huge fixed costs triggering obscene debt. An unsustainable burn rate. Grandiose predictions cratering on fiscal reality. Contributors unwilling or unable to pony up more cash.
Whether it’s managing the federal government or his own campaign, Barack Obama is as unbalanced with money as he is with policy.
CFIF on Twitter
CFIF on YouTube