April 23, 2007 08:11 PM UTC

Tancredo dead last in recent Republican fundraising - even losing to Jim Gilmore

• 6 Comments
• by: Tancredo Watch

Everyone knows that Tancredo can’t compete with the Big Boys in fundraising for the Republican presidential race. Tancredo’s total fundraising to date is dwarfed by the huge sums raked in by frontrunners Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain.

What’s surprising is how weak Tancredo’s fundraising has been in recent weeks compared to all of the other second-tier candidates. Tancredo is dead last among all Republican candidates in recent weeks, as week-by-week comparisons of itemized contributions at http://www.opensecre… reveals. (Go to Opensecrets.org and then click on “Week-by-Week Comparisons,” where you can compare fundraising week by week, matching up any two presidential candidates for either party.

For example, Duncan Hunter – who shares many of Tancredo’s positions on illegal immigration but who doesn’t carry Tancredo’s personal and ethical baggage – has been trouncing Tancredo in itemized fundraising over the past three months.

Sam Brownback is likewise easily besting Tancredo in recent fundraising – by a factor of two or three to one.

Against Mike Huckabee Tancredo does even worse: he’s getting beaten about five to one in recent weeks.

Tommy Thompson and even no-name Ron Paul are likewise doing much better than Tancredo in fundraising.

The true shocker is that even Jim Gilmore – who? – has decisively beaten Tancredo in the last two weeks’ itemized fundraising periods reported by Opensecrets.org.

People have been deriding Democrat Joe Biden’s presidential chances, but Biden is flat-out demolishing Tancredo in head-to-head fundraising comparisons, by 20-to-1 or more.

(Note: Since I originally posted this diary, an anonymous observer noted that the Opensecrets.org week-by-week comparisons tracks only ITEMIZED contributions, i.e., “TYPICALLY” those over $200. The observer claims that “seventy to eighty percent” of Tancredo’s support comes from contributors of less than $200: “i.e., your average Americans struggling to make ends meet.” However, there are two problems with this attempted excuse for Tancredo’s anemic numbers. First, regardless of whether he is required to itemize only contributions over $200, Tancredo’s contributions itemized on the Opensecrets.org site are far smaller: even contributions as low as $13 and $10 have been itemized. Second, unless there are major differences between Tancredo’s proportion of small-donor contributions and those of every other small-tier candidate – which seems unlikely – the Opensecrets.org figures are a good barometer of the overall malaise in Tancredo’s fundraising efforts.

Plus, if Tancredo can’t find many people willing to give him more than 200 bucks, that obviously says something about the strength – or more accurately, the weakness – of his support. Nevertheless, I regret the original error in my diary and appreciate the correction.)

Tancredo Watch has often referred to Tancredo as nothing more than the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich – nothing more than annoying gnats, really, to the serious candidates – and the fundraising figures bear that out. But what’s really amusing is that Kucinich actually took in MORE itemized funds than Tancredo during the most recent reporting period.

Once again: Tancredo is all hat, no cattle. Despite generating plenty of press, he has always had zero real influence in Washington, D.C. Now he seems to be spiraling towards zero in terms of real “put your money where your mouth is” public support as well.