71°
forecast

Fundraising reports show Mark Warner far ahead in U.S. Senate race

Posted to: Elections News Virginia

WASHINGTON

Already well ahead in opinion polls, Democratic senatorial nominee Mark Warner has amassed a cash reserve that threatens to bury Republican Jim Gilmore in a mountain of television ads during the final months of their U.S. Senate contest, financial reports released Tuesday suggest.

Warner reported raising about $2.9 million from April through June, more than six times as much as Gilmore. The Democrat has more than $5.1 million in the bank, compared to just under $117,000 for Gilmore.

While Gilmore strategists insisted they never expected to match Warner's fundraising - the Democrat has a personal fortune that guarantees he'll maintain an advantage, they say - some longtime GOP activists said the numbers look grim for Gilmore.

"A lot of people who have contributed a lot of money to him in the past aren't doing it this time," said J. Kenneth Klinge, a former state party executive and longtime GOP activist from Northern Virginia.

"What I'm hearing up this way, is that the money that in the past has gone to Republican candidates is going to Mark Warner," he added.

Gilmore's woes were perhaps most striking in the numbers from political action committees. Business-oriented committees are a traditional source of strength for Republican candidates, but Gilmore has collected only $4,500 from such groups since mid-May, his campaign reported. Warner reported PAC donations of just under $500,000.

Both Gilmore and Warner served as governor. Gil-more served from 1998-2002, and Warner served from 2002-06.

Unlike Warner, Gilmore had to fight to win his party's nomination, which sapped some of his campaign cash.

The reports indicated that Gilmore has broadened his base of donors since he secured the GOP nomination in early June. His new report includes about 3,500 contributions of $200 or less, which reflects growing support among working-class families, spokeswoman Ana Gamonal said.

But Warner also was doing well among individual donors, with donations of more than $2 million since April. The Warner camp said more than 7,100 Virginians made contributions to the Democrat's campaign during the three-month reporting period, accounting for 81 percent of his total donations from individuals.

"It's hard to find even a Republican these days who thinks Gilmore can win," said Jennifer Duffy, editor of the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan political newsletter.

Gilmore's problems are "not just about the money," Duffy added. Warner has so far been able "to run on a message of: I cleaned up Jim Gilmore's mess," she said. "That's hard to overcome."

Gilmore and Warner are vying to succeed GOP Sen. John Warner, who is retiring after five terms. The two Warners are not related.

The campaign's early skirmishes have centered largely on each man's tenure in Richmond, with Warner airing television commercials alleging that Gilmore left state finances in shambles and Gilmore arguing that Warner manufactured a financial crisis to justify a massive tax increase.

Warner went on the air with a new television ad this week that focuses on high energy prices. The spot includes a photo of an offshore oil well, shown as a narrator announces that expanded oil production is part of Warner's energy program.

"That tells you we're driving the message," said Dick Leggitt, a Gilmore strategist. He cited a drumbeat of Republican calls nationwide for action in Congress to boost oil production by opening offshore areas to drilling. In a news release Tuesday, the Gilmore campaign claimed the ad is a lie because Warner has opposed offshore drilling. Warner previously favored offshore exploration but not necessarily production.

Leggitt compared Gilmore's current position to the Republican's 1997 campaign for governor, when he said Gilmore began the race as an underdog to Democrat Don Beyer.

"We have a specific plan based on what we learned in '97.... If it takes hold, we'll win. If it doesn't, we probably won't," he said.

Dale Eisman, (703) 913-9872, dale.eisman@pilotonline.com

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.

pd40340

I totally understand, and I also totally agree with you. I admit I believe there is some level of fraud within our own Social Services, and I have previously commented on that, but they are few in number compaired to the larger picture. Taking advantage of the system is one thing, needing it is something else. It believe it could benefit all states to more closely monitor their Social Services depts. PD, I am on your side!

gertz...

I cannot disagree with your premise on the closed mindedness issue, but there is enough fault that runs both ways-for differing reasons. The main problem I have is with this mindset that welfare is a bad thing and people on it are all lazy baby pushers. It is not an easy task to get people off welfare and into jobs that can afford them to stay off of support. Why? Low pay, low or no benefits, childcare costs, education or re-training, etc. There has been much success as I noted in an earlier post and there is more to do. But what some fail to recognize is what happens if we just yank all support. The homeless numbers would swell, intake hospitals would become swamped even worse than they are now, crime rates would likely increase, etc. These have both monetary and societal costs. One must think of the consequences before making judgements. The cost savings on the front side may be drowned out by the cos

the fact is

The fact is that some rightwing's want to rant and rave about welfare, and any other program they can think of and seem to think it's all the Democrats fault. The porblem with that is that's all they can think of. Every time a Democrat is leading and most likely will win that's the topic Repubs will harp on. You cannot debate this with them because they have a totally closed mind. My Father use to say, trying to talk to a Republicon is like trying to talk to a drunk. All they want to do is argue, and think they are always right. Why can't they look in the mirror and see how much spending Bush had done and the deficit our grand children will be paying? Why can't they look and see this country is in an economic desaster? When it comes to looking at themselves Republicons look the other way. Good luck with all of that!

So Insulting..

I do not know why I even try to have a reasoned debate with some people. I am not pandering to "baby pushers" and never said so. Do you even know what recipients receive? You are so deep in your hatred of other people that you will not even consider that you could perhaps be mistaken. I have admitted there is fraud but to what degree I do not know. And I have said several times before on this issue that those people need to be weeded out. But I have no time for people who take the worst example and make it like that is the whole system in general and say so with not one ounce of verification as to what degree of truth belongs to their statements. I do research to find data and others apparently use opinion and sterotypes. I cannot have a debate anymore in that setting or mindset.

Word games...

Yes I said there were "massive" amounts of welfare families that have 5+ children and I said that no one said that the "masses" have 5+ children. Get over this pandering of the baby pushers and word play. Just face the facts that wefare is being used and abused as a way of life for more than you care to admit.

Please CB..

I am playing word games. You just said no one is saying there are massive amounts of 5+ children families, yet you said in an eariler post: "What I was referring to was the massive amount of children that are being born to idle baby pushing mothers of whom produce 5+ kids ...." You just contradicted your own statement. Sorry I pointed you out wrong. I have never agreed with welfare as a lifestyle. And reform has reduced the rolls: since 1995 the after inflation median state benefits down 18%; children living in families below poverty that receive benefits down from 61.5% to 28.9%; and children in families receiving benefits down from 9.5 million to 3.7 million. The program helps many who are in need temporarily so that they can get back to work, get retrained, etc. The abusers need to be weeded out but you seem to believe that we should eliminate it all due to a few bad apples.

No one said that...

PD, no one said that there were the masses of welfare families that have 5+ kids but you have to admit that there are enough to be alarmed about. Yes, a little embellishment but the point is still there. If you need it spelled out, here it is. If you cannot support "yourself" by "yourself" and require the public to care for you, you have no business bringing more people into the world that YOU cannot support by "yourself". Cut and dried. Stop playing word games and just face the facts.

RE:desperation mode

You failed to look at the con-serative's and how funny they are. We are all impressed with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and the list goes on. Try as you will, you cannot overlook the ignorance of our current leaders, but nice attempt. Sorry it didn't work!

Well CB...

Either way there are not the masses of 5+ children families out there as you originally stated. So we can stop questioning my math and question yours now. I am waiting.

Re: I call it desperation mode

.. "REALLY funny"...

Quite true. Nothing funnier than a Democrat politician. Jimmuh Cawtuh, Walter Mondull, Dukakis in the tank, Bill "what IS is Clinton, John Flip-flop Kerry, Elliot Spitzer (aka Client numbet 9), Gary Hart-pence & and the good ship Monkey Business, the Hillary cackle laugh, Obama & the preacher man, Howard HEE-YA! Dean, Nancy Botox Pelosi and the list goes on.... Your right though.. REALLY funny.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

More articles from: Elections rss feed    News rss feed   


Toolbox


Partners