Along with President Bush, candidates Dean and Kerry have announced they will not use public money (nor be bound by the restrictions that go along with campaigning at taxpayer expense) for the rest of the 2004 presidential campaign. Like former President Clinton, President Bush continues to break fundraising records for an incumbent president. While some find this surprising, it is to be expected. Given inflation, it would take a weak president to raise less money than his predecessor.

The real story is that the Democrats are actually raising more money than the Republicans. According to The Center for Responsive Politics, the Democratic presidential candidates have raised over $98 million vs. just under $85 million for President Bush. (These numbers were accurate according to the numbers reported to the government on October 15; obviously the number has increased by now). The number for the Democrats is actually understated – Bob Graham’s numbers are not shown since he has quit the race.

As my graph shows, even though the Democrats are raising more cash than the Republicans, their money will not be nearly as effective. Their house is currently divided, so even Howard Dean has well under 1/3rd of the money at the disposal of George Bush. And since Bush is unopposed for the Republican primary, he can save most of his money for the actual election, while the Democrats consume much of their current warchests battling amongst themselves.

As I editorialized a few weeks ago, the advantages of incumbency are almost insurmountable by a challenger unless the incumbent is unpopular within his own party and faces an independent challenger who can siphon off some of the incumbent’s traditional supporters. This is not the case with President George W. Bush. The longer the Democrats fight amongst themselves, and continue to divide up the Democratic funds, the tougher their challenge to overcome a popular incumbent.