How The Obama Campaign Can Do More With Less

            In emails to supporters, President Barack Obama has admitted that he may become the first incumbent president of the United States to be financially outraised in an election.  While Obama hasn’t been releasing his fundraising figures such that we can match them up with Romney’s, if the campaign itself is willing to admit a weakness I feel it can be taken at their word that the Obama campaign is in trouble when it comes to money. It may be useful for a campaign in general to scare its supporters into thinking that they’re falling behind on donations, but the president needs to project the image of strength and positivity that he rode in on in 2008, or end up fitting perfectly into a narrative of weakness and inability to win. Being able to tout large numbers is good for Obama, but bluffing doesn’t work when any organization can see how campaign money is being spent and raised. The gap gets worse looking at the right's more established Super PACS compared to the Democrat's, creating a financial advantage on two fronts. However, many analyzing the election have opted to simply leave things there, at seeing that the campaign is in trouble. The financial gap between the candidates deserves a deeper look, and demonstrates that while a monetary gap is a difficult thing to overcome, Obama is capable of spending far more efficiently than Romney.

            One of the most exaggerated money gaps in recent political memory was in 2010, in the race for California state governor between Republican Meg Whitman and Democrat Jerry Brown. $250 million was spent on the election, of which $177 million was Whitman’s alone – and of that $141 million was from Meg Whitman herself. In comparison, her major opponent, and California governor from 1975 to 1983, Jerry Brown, spent a mere $36 million. This represented not just a 2-to-1 spending advantage, or even a 3-to-1 advantage, but an almost 5-to-1 spending advantage for Whitman. While fundraising is always somewhat unpredictable, I believe I can safely guarantee that Mitt Romney will not be able to outspend Barack Obama to the tune of 4.91 dollars for every one of Obama’s. With nary a Super-PAC involved, Whitman had the most exaggerated monetary advantage of any candidate in recent memory.

            Meg Whitman lost her election in a landslide. By landslide, I mean a double-digits difference of 14% between Brown’s 53.6% of the electorate and her mere 41.3%. Whitman spent $46 per vote in her favor, while Brown spent only $7.50 in comparison. At the end of the day, Brown was spending far more efficiently than Whitman was.  In a way, this was because he had to spend less to get volunteers and donors. While Whitman spent $1.3 million on fundraising, Brown spent only $72,000. The reason he could get a way with spending less was that he simply had a better sell to give to possible donors – that he had been a popular governor before, as had been his father. In a similar vein Whitman had to spend $6.8 million on salaries for campaign aides, nearly twenty times Brown’s $312,000. Brown was able to get more aides to work for him for free or for less. Brown’s capability to in the end get more support with less spending can be seen in that he actually raised more than Whitman – while Whitman gained an advantage due to her self-funding, Brown raised forty million dollars in contrast to Whitman’s thirty-two million. Brown showed that a campaign where supporters are more dedicated can overcome massive monetary gaps when it comes to fundraising and volunteers – a similarity more shared with Obama, although maybe less now than in 2008, than with a Romney running not on his strengths but on Obama’s weaknesses. Washington strategist Rob Stutzman stated that “Brown entered the race with $100 million of name ID,” and that’s one incumbency advantage Obama will maintain throughout the race.

            Another way Brown overcame the spending gap was by simply embracing practicality. Whitman’s staff flew by private jet, while Brown just used Southwest airlines. Whitman spent a fortune on high-tech stages, while Brown’s rallies included cheap food and some taped-up signs, getting more or less with $70,000 what cost Whitman $2.7 million. After a certain point Whitman’s spending just became inefficient in terms of affecting voters when compared to Brown’s – once a candidate has accomplished all the essentials, each extra bit of spending does less and less. Much of the spending gap in 2012 may be in that area of inefficiency.

            All the cutting down Brown did on most of his campaign helped him keep even with Whitman where spending kept its efficiency at high levels – advertising. Brown spent at near-equal levels to Whitman in the last four weeks, when undecided voters started to make their decisions. Not only is spending inefficient at high levels, it’s inefficient too early on. If financial inequality can’t be kept in check, expect the Obama campaign to work comparably lean up until October and November, when they can make their big push.

            Of course, this isn’t to say that fundraising isn’t important. Smart spending always has some positive effect, even if it’s subdued. However, by harnessing existing advantages in supporter morale, working practically without luxuries, and timing spending pushes, the Obama campaign can substantially remove a Romney cash advantage.