Ron Paul Sets Fundraising Record

Ron Paul set the new high water mark for fundraising in one day for the Republican candidates--he pulled in $4.2 million yesterday online. Yesterday was Guy Fawkes day, a big day for Protestants in Britain:

Fawkes was a British mercenary who failed in his attempt to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. He also was the model for the protagonist in the movie V for Vendetta. Paul backers motivated donors on the Internet with mashed-up clips of the film on the online video site YouTube as well as the Guy Fawkes Day refrain: "Remember, remember the 5th of November."

Here's Steven Stark's reaction:

Paul is still terribly unlikely to do well at all in the race for the GOP nomination. But to the extent he gets any votes, he probably gets at least some of them at the expense of John McCain -- another candidate with appeal to independents. This is especially true in New Hampshire -- a state with some libertarian leanings -- and a state in which McCain must either finish near the top or end his candidacy. The long-term significance of yesterday is that Paul has now shown enough grass roots financial support that he can think about a credible third-party candidacy -- something he already tried 20 years ago as a libertarian. As we've written before, virtually any third-party candidacy in 2008 helps the Democrats. The more support Paul attracts, the better Hillary's general election chances look.

Intriguing, but I don't see Paul going third party. He's had such a great forum as a Republican, going to all these debates. If did the Libertarian Party route again, that could be an interesting scenario, with perhaps Bloomberg even being added to the mix, but Stark is right, it would seal a Democratic victory.

Clinton up, Obama down

Clinton up slightly and Obama down slightly this month, according to Intrade...

Here's the trends for betting on the Democratic presidential nominee this year, from Intrade.

One the first picture, I point to the rise amongst betters in the expected probability that Clinton and Obama could win the nomination after the first-quarter fund-raising numbers came out.

The second picture points out how the release of the second-quarter numbers caused a drop for Clinton and rise for Obama.

Finally, the third picture points to what's happened most recently. Clinton has rallied slightly and Obama dropped slightly.

Why has this happened? What's been going on in the middle of July to make Clinton a marginally better bet to win the nomination?

Well, first of all, Bill Clinton started campaigning for Hillary. That's seems to have made the difference. Also, Barack Obama was bogged down by attacks Mitt Romney made regarding his position on sex ed for kindergarteners.

The money race!

Money raised in the second quarter, and the difference from the first quarter...

Democrats:

Obama: $31 million (up $5 million)

Clinton: $21 million (down $5 million)

Edwards: $9 million (down $5 million)

Richardson: $7 million (down $0.8 million)

Dodd: $3.25 million (down $0.7 million)

Biden: $2.4 million (up $0.3 million)

Republicans:

Giuliani: $17 million (up $1 million)

Romney: $14.5 million (down $6.5 million)

McCain: $11.2 million (down $1 million)

Brownback: $1.5 million (up $0.2 million)

John McCain's financial woes is the headline for the Republican second quarter numbers. Forbes makes this point about it:

McCain still raised $11.2 million during the second quarter, which is more than the $9 million raised during the same period by Edwards, who is still considered a viable candidate. In fact, this funding is more than any other candidate (except President George W. Bush, running unopposed) garnered during the second quarter of 2003--a year and a half before the last presidential election.

It's his cash-on-hand number that justifies the headlines. Forbes again:

Still, it would appear that McCain's spending pace is coming dangerously close to outpacing his collections. With $2 million in cash on hand and $24 million raised in total, McCain has burned through roughly 90% of his finances. By contrast, the eventual Democratic nominee last time around, Sen. John Kerry, had a burn rate of only about 32% by this point in 2003, according to the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonprofit organization that tracks money and politics.

The New York Times provides Edwards strategy:

Edwards’ team posits the money is less important than the media implies, especially for their strategy. “We don’t think this is a race for cash,” deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince told reporters in a conference call Sunday. Prince said Edwards remained focused on winning the traditional early contests that kick off the nominating process — the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. “We have all the money we’re going to need to be competitive in those states,” he said. “This isn’t a money race, it’s a race to win the nomination and that’s exactly what we intend to do,” echoed Edwards adviser Joe Trippi, whose ran Dean’s campaign for the 2004 Democratic nomination.

The Edwards spin is actually right on. It's not a money race; it's a votes race, and what matters is winning in the early states. The money will come in after that. The problem is keeping up with the Clintons and Obamas--if Edwards is so far outpaced that he becomes dismissed as a serious candidate that's obviously a problem. But that's unlikely to happen.