There's a thick jumble of new data now coming out about the financial strength of the various campaigns, courtesy of the Federal Election Commission. The only question is whether there are any hidden numbers in all these reports that reflect a game-changing new reality in the race. The answer is no. But some findings do undermine conventional wisdom.
First, the Democrats. One reason Das Hillary Apparat is said to be invincible and inevitable is the campaign's "big financial advantage over her rivals." Untrue. For every dollar of primary money in Hillary's bank account, Obama has 90 cents. No killer advantage for Clinton, and Obama has enough cash to go to the show if he can upset HRC in Iowa. No Democratic challenger ever has stepped up to the frontrunner with the kind of money muscle Obama has.
Both Clinton and Obama have about twice as much cash on hand as Rudy Giuliani, the leading GOP moneybags. Romney is a special case, a self-funder with very deep pockets. But Boston's burn rate is enormous and the Romney campaign is clearly addicted to Mitt's checkbook. If those checks ever stop coming, the Romney machine will sputter to a halt.
Edwards still has enough money to play hard in Iowa, but one wonders if he'll raise enough in the fourth quarter to stay viable. Richardson is a dime-store version of Edwards, showing table stakes but little more. McCain's report reveals a heavy anchor on his comeback, with limited cash and a significant debt. It looks like McCain has almost no real-life-money available, which is not enough to really engage the others with early state television. He badly needs a fourth quarter fund-raising surge. Huckabee can afford his Iowa field offices and little else. The others still don't count.
