Kasich quietly files campaign report.
Submitted by modernesquire on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 4:56pm.
Here's John Kasich on his campaign website a month ago (emphasis added):
But tomorrow, my campaign will face its first real challenge - our first financial deadline. The money we've raised by June 30 will be the first public indicator of the strength of our support.
Here's Kasich's cash-on-hand in his campaign finance report he quietly filed today: $451,292.78.
Compared to Strickland's cash-on-hand: $4,015,716.49.
That's nearly a 9 to 1 fundraising advantage. Strickland never had that kind of advantage even over Blackwell.
Kasich is also going to have a hard time portraying himself as a political maverick different from the Bush Republican brand, too.
He's gotten his $11,395.00 donation from White Hat Management (for-profit charter school Chairman) David Brennan. A 11,395.00 from a Donald Rumsfeld who lists his occupation as "Retired." (How mavericky.)
He also got a $250 from his astroturfing, out-of-state blogger at ThirdBasePolitics.
Kasich has been running for, by his own account, nearly two years for Governor by going to these GOP county dinners and talking down Ted Strickland. FOX News has been whoring his candidacy nearly as much as they did the Tea Parties. Kasich has absolutely no excuse for his weak fundraising.
This was, by Kasich's billing, his first opportunity to show a sign of strength. He failed.
I love how...
Submitted by twr5150 on Sat, 08/01/2009 - 3:22am.
...money doesn't seem to matter when it's Fisher V. Brunner but it does matter when it's Kasich V. Strickland. Pick a position folks.
I would argue...
Submitted by twr5150 on Sat, 08/01/2009 - 7:41pm.
...that money is more important in a primary than a general. In a primary many party voters are looking to the strongest candidate for the general and weak fundraising numbers makes one look less viable. Heck, even Emily's List has stopped mentioning Brunner. I bet she drops out by Christmas.
Actually, no
Submitted by AmberCat on Sat, 08/01/2009 - 8:01pm.
I've been having all kinds of conversations with hardcore Democratic activitists, the kind who get people out to vote and on whom primaries depend. They are not looking at Lee's money; they are looking at Lee's lack of electability — in the eys of most. Portman WILL have more money so we need the candidate who is running a clear, strong campaign and can bring it to Portman on his vulnerability (trade, jobs) without being vulernable herself on that issue. None of the longtime party regulars i'm talking to — including ones who have worked on every one of Lee's past campaigns – are talking much about his money being the key factor, since he won't have that advantage over Portman.
There's another difference too between this race and Kasich-Strickland, and that is campaign narrative. Kasich's is so weak, without any defining issue at all anymore and his old one easily dismantled by a wily Strickland, that he would need mountains of money to overcome it in a way he would not if he had a message that captured the zeitgeist. Lee's problem is that his only message so far is "I have gobs of money." And the people who are key to winning the primary are looking to hear something more from Lee.
Money is WAY less important in a primary. I'm betting no one drops out but if anyone drops out by Christmas, it will be Lee. He just hasn't shown us what he has that can beat Portman.
Pick a Position?
Submitted by JP7 on Sat, 08/01/2009 - 1:30pm.
How do you expect them to pick a position when they're political hacks? All politics is spin. If you expect an honest site, you're wasting your time.
Excuse me — really?