Chris Cillizza at The Fix blog at the The Washington Post writes the following in reaction to the Rasmussen poll of the Masschusetts Senate race:
Coakley’s fundraising abilities also ensures that she will be able to overwhelm Brown in the final weeks of the campaign as both candidates seek to drive their message home to voters. As of Nov. 18, Coakley had raised $4.2 million for the race and had $1.9 million in the bank; Brown, on the other hand, had raised just $460,000 and had $258,000 left to spend.
Coakley is expected to exploit her financial advantage by going on television this week, an ad campaign but almost certain to overwhelm the meager money that Brown is putting behind his own commercials with no help likely to come from the national GOP.
Makes sense, to someone who never read this blog and doesn’t know better. Keep it up mainstream media and mainstream bloggers, we can’t do it without you.
Update: An Open Letter to Jane Hamsher
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Coakley probably CAN out-fundraise Brown over the next two weeks. The question is, how mch does that help her? As Cilizza points out, Coakley is already a pretty well-known, well-defined candidate who is running a cautious campaign predicated on the fact there are a lot more Dems them Republicans in Massachusetts. How will purchasing more TV ads really help her? Is she going to switch gears and start campaigning on a dramatically different theme? Is she going to go negative on Brown (thus driving up his name recognition and risking backlash)? I don't see it.
Brown may have less money to spend, but he can probably get more bang for his buck than Coakley can. Money can help him in ways that it seemingly can't help his opponent. Two things come to mind immediately: (1) Since he currently has relatively low name recognition, Brown has the opportunity to introduce himself to more potential supporters who have never heard of him. It is unlikely Coakley has many potential new supporters who haven't already heard of her.(2) The visibility Brown would create just by getting more commercials on the air will signal to a lot of angry, fed-up people who assumed the race was decided when Coakley won the Dem primary that this is an actual, competitive race.
Unfortunately, as you so astutely said, this attention might just bring in the negative Dem machine, along with their deep pockets.
A bit off-topic, but can you get a link to the debate Brown had on the radio today? That might enlighten a few people, beyond what you've already blogged. Perhaps it will help to boost the fund-raising, to listen to him stand against Coakley.
I wish I could share in the optimism but this blog_article from realclearpolitics a few days ago has me worry? As always, the devil is in the details.
"Brown, on the other hand, had raised just $460,000 and had $258,000 left to spend."
They have nooo idea do they? Bad intel could work to Scott's advantage. Coakley will get complacent.
Meanwhile, I hope all the readers here are putting the money where their mouth is. C'mon! If you haven't already, contribute to Scott Brown's campaign. I'll be donating a third time this week + organizing a local drive.
If Rick Warren could raise over $2.4 million in online donation to keep his mega church from going under (question: why does a church have that kind of deficit to begin with?), I have no reason to think we CAN'T raise much more for something as critical as saving the Republic.
And to those Doubting Thomas's who's circulating the I'm-from-Massachusetts-No-way-Scott's-gonna-win Miasma… Never say never. The Colonist, always outnumbered and out funded were able to take on an Empire. So can we.