While spending little, Donald Trump was able to use
multi-candidate field dynamics, a pliable press and a well-targeted message to
a certain kind of Republican to be successful. But the challenge in the general
election is more difficult and will require more resources. In 2012, both sides
spent about $1 billion. The race was close and Democrats probably did a better
job of maximizing the efficiency of their dollars. But it was quite clear that
a difference in money was not the deciding factor in the race.
The Clinton campaign and a supportive Democratic party should
be able to replicate the effort in 2016. That Hillary Clinton is slightly more
pro-corporate doesn’t hurt. The Clintons’ relationships with the donor class certainly
go back further. Trump is probably more terrifying to certain people and that also
will help. Clinton may do slightly less well with small donors, but there are
other vehicles for money to flow into. Democratic fundraising should be watched
but is not likely to fall short of goals.
The question is how Trump will raise a comparable sum of money.
First, let’s start with the fact that “I am really rich, I am funding my own
campaign” Donald Trump so far has run an incredibly cheap race. He spent about
$50 million and probably even less because some of that went to purchase merchandise
that was then resold. So the net amount benefitted the campaign but it wasn’t
all pure spending. And he doesn’t seem likely to spend more personal funds in
the general election. Even if we take Trump at his word on how much he is
worth, his own estimate of his cash on hand is $382 million -- a lot of money but
only a third of what he needs and candidates rarely spend every dime they have.
Trump could try and sell or mortgage an asset but that presents its own set of
problems. The person buying the asset or loaning him the money might be seen as
helping Trump. Some people won’t want the attention and some people who
wouldn’t care might be the type of people Trump wouldn’t want to be associated
with. So this avenue for obtaining the funds will not be easy.
Trump has had two opportunities during the campaign to
demonstrate his wealth. In both cases, what he showed was underwhelming. Trump
donated $1 million to the veteran fundraiser he put on in lieu of going to the
final debate in Iowa. That may seem like a lot until you realize he claims to
be worth $10 billion, meaning he gave one one-hundredth of one percent of his
claimed wealth When he visited the New York 9/11 memorial museum he gave a relatively
puny $100,000. We therefore doubt Trump’s
own wealth is enough to support a general election campaign.
If the Donald
can’t come up with the money for his campaign, perhaps he’ll just rely on rich
developer friends to finance his campaign via a Super Pac. There are grounds
for skepticism here too. Let’s return to Trump’s pre-Iowa effort to raise money
for the veterans. The effort took in $6 million. That may seem like a lot,
until one realizes that this was the absolute easiest way for his friends to
help Trump through a tax deductible donation to veterans. If you were ever inclined
to help Trump even a little bit, why not take advantage of this opportunity? But
so few did. Trump, it seems, has more business partners than actual friends, and
they’re not likely to step up and fund his campaign.
This leaves
traditional Republican donors and small donors. For traditional Republican donors,
giving is very much a transactional and relationship building exercise. Most of
those donors were with someone else and already feel burned. More important,
for every industry except extraction (fossil fuels, logging and the like), it
is not even clear Trump would be better than Clinton. He wanders from issue to
issue erratically; it is hard even to know where Trump will be tomorrow. So who
would believe his presidency will help them enough to invest in him? Even for
pure ideologues who are interested in advancing conservatism and not personal
interests, how certain can they be that Trump will further their agenda?
Trump’s suggestion just this week that he would renegotiate our debt posed a
real risk to the pocketbooks of all these people. They may not like what they
will get with Clinton, but they also lived through a Clinton and things did not
work out terribly for them. Trump also
trails in the polls, which means that even if he persuaded big donors he was
better for them, it would be hard for him to persuade them that he can win and thus
be a good investment.
The smaller
donor path seems more promising, but even here there’s a hitch. He has spent
the better part of 11 months telling potential small donors over and over again
that he does not need their money. To pivot now to say that he does, and
desperately so, might turn them off. For every dollar he raises, he runs the
risk of undermining his earlier message that he can’t be bought. Every time Trump
asks small donors to help, he undermines his message even more. Plus, he’s
going to have to ask a lot and it still likely won’t be enough. He could easily
still be looking at a 2-1 or greater disparity between his campaign and that of
Clinton.
So what? It could
be argued that Trump has done more with less than almost anyone could have
imagined. That is certainly true but the challenge only gets steeper for him.
Demographic changes are profoundly changing the electorate. In 2012 Barack
Obama beat Mitt Romney by about 5 million votes. Among those voters still alive
(Romney voters were older) Obama would have won by about 6 million. Trump does
not have a new demographic trick or policy answer that will move people to his
side. Sure he can hope for a drop off in voting in Democratic leaning groups,
yet younger people entering the electorate who do not like Trump may offset
that decline. It is hard to imagine Trump can win with the same voters from
2012. He needs to expand the electorate. Getting new voters to join the
electorate is among the most expensive, intensive and difficult work
imaginable. We have not yet seen voter registration spikes nearly large enough
to give Trump a chance. Time is of the essence. It all costs money and we
aren’t sure how Trump gets it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment