2008 What Mitt’s Money Has Bought Him (Other Than Tears)
posted by on February 6 at 14:30 PM
By Ryan S. Jackson
As mentioned earlier, Mitt Romney has a minor problem—he needs delegates to be the nominee, and so far the delegates have gone out of their way to resist his electoral affections. Which is odd, because he’s spent lavishly to win their fickle hearts:
Republican campaign operatives call it the Gramm-o-meter, the money a candidate spends per delegate won, in honor of Phil Gramm, the former Texas senator who spent $25 million and won just 10 delegates, or $2.5 million per, in 1996.By Republican strategist Alex Vogel’s calculation, Mitt Romney is giving Gramm a run for his money. The former Massachusetts governor has spent $1.16 million per delegate, a rate that would cost him $1.33 billion to win the nomination.
Money cannot buy Mitt Romney love. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand:
By contrast, Mike Huckabee’s campaign has been the height of efficiency. Delegates haven’t yet been officially apportioned, but roughly speaking, each $1 million spent by Huckabee has won him 20 delegates.
The question of what Huckabee has really won with his money rests on a subordinate question: How much is is really worth to have your claim to fame be “I spent millions of dollars simply to be remembered as ‘That guy who ran for president with Chuck Norris’ for the rest of my life”?
I’m having trouble making a value judgment.
please do the math for us for giuliani.
please.
Mitt's learning you can't buy the election--er, at least not that directly.
Pastor Huck is learning Jesus loves him. (But apparently God hates the South voting on Super Tuesday and sent tornadoes...)
i hate chuck norris
Is anybody going to give Obama credit for being rather good at electoral math? His campaign has money, but not an infinite amount: the money and people he had were distributed quite well to net him the most delegates at the end of the night.
Is this not a precursor to how they would play in the general election?
Looks like Hillary is descending to Romney-esque depths:
Clinton Lent Campaign $5 Million, Considers More
This can only mean two things:
god hates mormons.
Yeah. How come Obama is so much better at raising money? I thought Hillary was supposed to be some kind of jedi master at winning elections.
No it means Bill's loaded and Hill's in trouble.
@5: I think 1 AND 2 are both correct.
If that loan doesn't work, there's always the Chinese or the House of Saud.
I hear they have lots of money... and might like to have some influence.
Huckabee's money was by far the better investment, not just for the 20-1 delegate count per million, but for the fact that his showing yesterday all but guarantees he'll be offered McCain's VP slot.
I heard on NPR last week that Giuliani spent $50M and won one delegate.
I don't think that record for futility will ever be broken.
Good point, dw. Even Ron Paul got three times as many delegates.
Mormons are richer than baptists, but baptists outnumber mormons. And they're all worthless.
Giuliani's going from front-runner to $50 mil for one delegate is not just the worst political performance of all time, it's arguably the biggest failure ever in any field. It's like the Yankees losing 161 games next year. It's like every member of the cast of a Broadway show dying of a heart attack in the first ten minutes of opening night. It's like finding out your first girlfriend in high school is a serial killer. It's beautiful. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
This reminds me of one of Mudede's posts. Good work, Ryan.
Also Fnarf.
I dunno it seems like Huckabee has won a fairly good shot at a veepship, plus it establishes him as a player in Christianist circles. At the very least he could leverage it into some Christian talk show.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).