Democrats’ funds could run dry before facing Trump

Democrats risk dumping their dollars against themselves, leaving little to use against President Trump ahead of the general election. An obvious danger exists here, but also a largely forgotten one: Democrats heavily outspent Trump in 2016 — and lost. The prospect of a depleted Democratic nominee facing a heavily funded incumbent Trump recasts the race many are anticipating. 

Most saw only the front runners in the Federal Election Commission’s first quarter fundraising report. Presidential politics is covered like a horse race — the attention is on early leaders: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is leading the crowded Democratic field with $20.7 million. Trump, meanwhile, has $30.3 million. However, like horse racing, the size of the field and the distance of the race are also important. 

{mosads}How the horses leave the gate is interesting, but how they finish is what counts. The FEC’s report gave an important indication that the Democrats’ 2020 entrant may be spent before the homestretch because whoever it is will have over-spent to get there. 

Among the 15 major Democratic candidates (who have raised $1 million or more) they have collectively raised $121.5 million, according to Axios. That’s enormous. This sum represents 14.9 percent of the $817.5 million Clinton and Sanders spent during 2015-2016. At that pace, Democrats would raise an astounding $972 million — even without counting four other Democrats already running and the subsequent entries of Biden (after which he claimed a $6.3 million first day haul) and Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet. 

In contrast, Trump’s haul represented just 8.9 percent of his 2016 total. So although ahead of everyone, he actually trails behind his 2016 pace ($343 million total spending). 

Democrats would seem to have the advantage in this scorching start, but not so fast. The race is long for such a pace, and Democrats must run two, for the nomination and the general, while President Trump effectively runs only one. 

It is highly optimistic so much money awaits Democrats this time — and even more that it keeps coming at the first quarter’s pace. In 2016, Democrats had the prohibitive favorite, Clinton — this time they do not.  

However, it is not a big assumption that Democrats must raise a lot of money, because they must spend a lot surviving their primaries. 

Democrats seeking the nomination face grueling contests. There are 20 candidates already. If 2016’s contest went the distance with only two, it is likely to do so again with more running. The large number of debates (up to 12, beginning in June and then occurring monthly) and Democratic primaries’ awarding of delegates proportionally, will both help candidates keep running — the first by exposure; the latter by preventing winner-take-all delegate windfalls.  

Once at the convention, the change barring super delegates from guaranteeing an immediate resolution — which guaranteed it for Clinton in 2016 — could further prolong the race… and the spending. The upshot: Democrats’ nomination process will prove long, bitter… and expensive. 

The one finally emerging will need more cash to offset Trump’s advantages. 

One will be his prodigious war chest. Now the incumbent, he is a far better bet than he was as a 2016 long-shot. He will attract money accordingly. Further without serious challenge for the nomination, he will have that money for the general election.

Another will be Trump’s ability to generate “earned media,” something at which he has been extraordinarily adept since entering 2016’s race. Being president — as all incumbents demonstrate — only enhances his innate ability. 

Finally, the long Democratic nomination battle will produce issues and divisions on which Trump can effectively concentrate those resources. 

Ultimately, Trump’s 2020 position is stronger than 2016 — and in 2016, it still proved sufficient. At the same time, his Democratic opponents will need to maintain an influx of fundraising to have a chance against him.

Together, these are a serious handicap for what Trump’s eventual 2020 Democratic challenger. Yet, the Democrats’ left-centered nomination battle threatens to dry up money from elsewhere, at the same time they have largely tapped out their left during the primaries. 

{mossecondads}Simply assuming Democrat resources will broadly pour in for their nominee (from Democrats’ establishment and center-right) is presumptuous. To understand, recall the enthusiasm Sanders supporters had for Clinton in 2016. A contentious 2020 nomination fight for the party’s left may detrimentally reverse that 2016 dynamic.

In horse racing and presidential politics, it is tempting to assume the next one will be run like the last. However, 2020’s changes in distance and field make for different races. 

Most watching the campaign have paid little attention to Democrats’ overwhelming 2016 monetary advantage. Trump had only 58.6 percent of Clinton’s dollar resources and was out-spent by $242 million. They also miss that Democrats’ overwhelming dollar advantage will not exist in 2020. And they have ignored completely the real possibility that the advantage is likely to be Trump’s.  

J.T. Young served under President George W. Bush as the director of communications in the Office of Management and Budget and as deputy assistant secretary in legislative affairs for tax and budget at the Treasury Department. He served as a congressional staffer from 1987-2000.