Money--It's a Gas

Karl Rove is hard at work in the Wall Street Journal today doing his best to create a new piece of CW: Obama's victory was all about cash. Granted, that's not exactly a "new" idea. But Rove would very much like it to be the idea that catches on.

And he makes some good points. I knew Obama had a big financial edge, but I never realized quite how mind-bogglingly huge it was:

A state-by-state analysis confirms the Obama advantage. Mr. Obama outspent Mr. McCain in Indiana nearly 7 to 1, in Virginia by more than 4 to 1, in Ohio by almost 2 to 1 and in North Carolina by nearly 3 to 2. Mr. Obama carried all four states.

To quote Edwin Starr, "Good God, y'all!" That can buy a lot of soft-focus ads on the evening news. In our National Elections class yesterday (the last one ever, thankfully), we talked about how money might have made the difference. Take the example of NC, for instance. Perhaps there was a large population of latent Democrats in the state. They had never voted before, though, because no one ever reached out to them. Obama's money changed that.

But Rove might put a wee too much emphasis on cash. He writes:

Mr. Obama also used his money to outmuscle Mr. McCain on the ground, with more staff, headquarters, mail and a larger get-out-the-vote effort. In mid-September the Obama campaign said its budget for Florida was $39 million. The actual number was probably larger. But in any case, Mr. McCain spent a mere $13.1 million in the state. Mr. Obama won Florida by 2.81 percentage points.

How much of that was money and how much was genuine enthusiasm for Obama? You can't neatly separate those two ideas. Enthusiasm generates money generates enthusiasm generates...you get the idea. It's like the cycle of violence, only fought with credit cards instead of grenades and rockets.