Campaign burn rate: Is Jeb Bush spending money too fast?

Jeb Bush staffed up for a front-runner campaign and so is burning through money. So is Hillary Clinton, but she's doing better in the polls. 

Brian Snyder/Reuters
Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush pauses during an interview with Reuters at Nonie's Restaurant in Peterborough, N.H., on Oct. 13, 2015.

Want to know why Jeb Bush’s donors are getting nervous? Consider this one number, calculated from his just-released third quarter Federal Election Commission financial filing: 85 percent.

That’s Bush’s “burn rate," the money he spent compared to the money he took in. Not saving much for the future, is he? His campaign raised just over $13 million for the third quarter, but it spent $11 million. If it were a public for-profit business, numbers like that could cause its stock to tank.

No wonder Bush has moved to cut staff salaries and reduce other expenses. From the beginning, he concentrated on building a full-service, front-runner campaign. But that’s not the position he is now in.

“Bush’s campaign once saw its size and staff as its strength. But the newly released campaign finance reports indicate it could be a liability if fundraising slacks further,” notes Politico’s Marc Caputo this morning.

Burn rate per se isn’t really Bush’s problem. You know who else spent a comparable percentage of their third-quarter inflow? Hillary Clinton. Hers was even higher, as she doled out close to 90 percent of the $28 million she raised from July through September.

She’s got 78 paid organizers in Iowa and 50 paid staffers in Iowa. She travels almost exclusively by private jet. Mrs. Clinton’s not bumping around early voting states in a white van and crashing at supporters’ homes.

The difference, of course, is the size of your cash cushion and future financial prospects. Clinton has $32 million cash-on-hand, while Bush has $10 million. Clinton’s fundraising prospects remain strong – she’s 20 points up in the polls, and donors always find front-runners appealing. Bush’s prospects... well, he’s tied for sixth at the moment, with 7.3 percent of the GOP vote, according to RealClearPolitics. He’s falling far short of donors’ early expectations.

The most interesting comparison here for Bush isn’t Clinton, but perhaps Marco Rubio. It’s Rubio that pundits consider Bush’s main rival for the position of most-electable non-Trump candidate in the GOP field.

In some ways Senator Rubio is no better off than his fellow Floridian. He only raised about $6 million in the third quarter. Yet he spent $4.6 million. His burn rate was 80 percent – close to Bush’s.

Rubio has $9.8 million in cash-on-hand, also close to the Bush number.

But Rubio is higher in the polls, at 9.7 percent. He’s the top non-Trump, non-Ben Carson candidate. In other words, he’s the top non-outsider.

The bottom line: This means sniping between the Bush and Rubio camps will intensify. Only one of them is likely to make it through the early primaries and emerge as a contender around which the GOP establishment can rally.

“They’re both competing for the same donors, and both are felling pressure to show progress. And frankly, they’re both stuck in the second tier right now,” wrote NBC’s Chuck Todd and Carrie Dann this a.m.

That’s why Jeb Bush Jr. on Thursday took a shot at Rubio’s Senate record, saying that the latter is missing so many floor votes by running for president that he should “drop out or do something."

Look for the Rubio camp to respond to this in kind.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.