Romney Starting to Lose Donations

A couple weeks ago I wrote about the risk for Mitt Romney that if he continues to look like a candidate that isn’t going to win, money might start to flow toward Obama. But it looks like donors are starting to shift money not to Obama but to Republican candidates for the House and Senate.

The trend isn’t at the acute stage, at least not yet, said one person with direct knowledge of the matter. This person, a major player in Romney’s New York fundraising circles, confirmed to FOX Business that a few New York donors have backed away from financial commitments to the Romney campaign and instead said they will spend their money to help the Republicans hold on to the House of Representatives, and pick up seats in the Senate.

But another person with direct knowledge of the matter says the trend, though nascent, is more geographically broad based, and reflects an increasing degree of anxiety both with what they believe is the tentative nature of the Romney campaign, and recent poll numbers that show President Obama with a lead, particularly in key battleground states, that some Republican contributors are starting to believe is insurmountable.

“This isn’t just a New York trend,” this person said. “It’s beginning to occur all over the place.”

This may also happen with the big third party groups, like Karl Rove’s Crossroads organizations, which could decide that the presidential race is hopeless and their money is better spent holding on to the House. I wonder if Wednesday’s debate might change that dynamic.

9 comments on this post.
  1. ewanmacdonald:

    I heard the exact opposite from my brother this morning: that in the wake of the first debate, a lot of the major financiers have turned their attention back to Romney and away from the down-ticket. Not sure where he’d read that, though.

  2. mikeyb:

    I’m really not sure. I mean we’re talking about a country who elected Reagan, and both Bushes, and the pseudo-Democrat Bill Clinton. Like they say, never underestimate the wisdom of the
    American people. It could be that money is being shifted, because they don’t think they need it to secure Romney’s election. If Romney wins he’ll need a Republican senate to work through the final stages of the only consistent set of Republican ideas of the last forty years – Plutocracy, low taxes for the super rich and multinational corporations, and last but not least, the end of the welfare state. In other words, back to the America of the 1850′s.

  3. dingojack:

    According to Intrade:
    By party
    Democratic: 71.569% [lead by 43.529]
    Republican: 28.039%

    Republican bounce at 4 Oct: 11.6166; now 4.7257 over 25 Sept.

    Head to head
    Obama: 68.794% [lead by 37.487]
    Romney: 31.206%

    Romney bounce at 4 Oct: 9.343%; now 7.182 over 25 Sept.

    Dingo

  4. cry4turtles:

    I swear, this concerns me more than Romney, who will most likely sprint to the center if he’s elected. A teapublican congress will be devastating to women’s rights no matter who is the POTUS.

  5. Ichthyic:

    more confusion the better.

    maybe people will start getting the clue their money is better spent elsewhere than campaign contributions?

    well, I can dream.

  6. Ichthyic:

    Like they say, never underestimate the wisdom of the
    American people.

    overestimate you mean.

  7. Ichthyic:

    maybe Obama’s poor oratory performance in the 1st debate was intentional, and designed to cause exactly this confusion in the money flow.

    now that would be some serious strategery.

  8. Modusoperandi:

    As usual, Obama’s playing six-dimensional chess. Just you wait. He’ll come out as the scrappy, plucky, ballsy liberal we all know he really is. Soon. You’ll see.

  9. Electric Shaman:

    @ mikeyb

    Who is “they”? Here’s another useless cliche: Never underestimate the gullibility of the American people. Seems to have worked for American politicians since there was an United States of America. Certainly seems to have worked for Bush Jr, Rove, and Cheney, but they haven’t been the only ones.

    Clinton ran as a Democrat. The Democrats nominated him twice as their presidential candidate. Where does the “pseudo” play a part? And what did Clinton do to warrant your “pseudo-Democrat” label? As the head of the party, I imagine he possessed primary control of what the party’s message was at that time. Who else would? You?

    And also, thank you for explaining the Republican Party’s agenda to all of us here. Had it not been for you, a lifetime’s worth of self-analysis, introspective thinking and education would have lead me to vote for Romney and the Republicans.

    I pseudo thank you.

Leave a comment

You must be