Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Mama Grizzlies Backed Christine O'Donnell Prior to Palin Endorsement

Bookmark and Share

Female donations to O'Donnell in 2010 up 694 percent prior to Palin endorsement compared to 2008 campaign; women contributing 1 in 3 large donor dollars to O'Donnell in 2010 compared to 1 in 6 in 2008

Although Delaware Republican U.S. Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell's campaign was given a large boost in the days before the primary by both an endorsement by Sarah Palin and television and radio ad support by the Tea Party Express, the contours of O'Donnell's 2010 supporters had already looked much different than her failed 2008 Senate bid.

A Smart Politics analysis of Federal Election Commission individual itemized fundraising data through the August 25th filing period finds that large donor contributions by women to O'Donnell's campaign had increased nearly 700 percent over her 2008 campaign through the same period, compared to just over 200 percent among male donors.

O'Donnell's six-point primary upset over nine-term Congressman Mike Castle has buoyed her fundraising efforts to the tune of nearly $2 million in the subsequent five days, or approximately eight times the amount she had raised from 2009 through the tail end of August.

But even before this fundraising surge, and Sarah Palin's September 9th endorsement, O'Donnell had already felt a big bump in support among "mama grizzlies" - Palin's term for women who are fighting to take the country back for conservative policies and principles.

At this stage in her 2008 run against Democrat Joe Biden, women contributed only 15.7 percent of individual itemized funds to O'Donnell's campaign.

In her 2010 campaign, that number has more than doubled to 32.2 percent.

In short, O'Donnell was already receiving nearly 1 in 3 dollars from women before the Palin endorsement, compared to less than 1 in 6 dollars during her 2008 bid.

Large Donor Individual Contributions to Christine O'Donnell's U.S. Senate Campaign by Gender, 2008 vs. 2010

Gender
2008
2010
% Change
Female
$5,540
$43,291
+694.3
Male
$29,250
$91,112
+211.5
Total
$34,700
$134,403
+287.3
Note: Denotes large donor individual funds raised through August 25th of 2008 and 2010 respectively. Data compiled by Smart Politics.

And from where was this money coming?

Interestingly, O'Donnell had also already latched on to the national conservative movement prior to Palin's endorsement - a movement that has benefited so many Tea Party Republican darlings this election cycle.

At this stage of her 2008 campaign, 81 percent of her large donor money was coming from within Delaware, with just 19 percent from out of state.

In 2010, however, 87 percent of her money is coming from out of state, compared to just 13 percent from Delawareans - all this occurring before her Palin endorsement and national media exposure after her primary victory.

As a result, even though O'Donnell launched her 2010 campaign earlier in the cycle than during her 2008 bid, and even though she had nearly doubled her individual large donor receipts in 2010, O'Donnell had actually raised more money from Delaware residents at this point in the election cycle in 2008 ($29,250) than in 2010 ($18,156).

By contrast, 'establishment' candidate Mike Castle had raised 50 percent of his nearly $2 million in large donor individual contributions in the 2010 election cycle from within The First State ($982,533 through August 25th).

O'Donnell's biggest support came from two states, with more than one-third of her large donor money originating from Pennsylvania ($46,600, 34.7 percent) and more than one-fifth coming from Texas ($28,550, 21.2 percent).

Overall, 56 percent of O'Donnell's large donor funds came from Texas and Pennsylvania, compared to just 10 percent for Castle.

Large Donor Individual Contributions to Christine O'Donnell's U.S. Senate Campaign by State, 2008 vs. 2010

Donor
2008
% 2008
2010
% 2010
Delaware
$27,950
80.6
$18,156
13.5
Out of state
$6,750
19.4
$116,247
86.5
Total
$34,700
100.0
$134,403
100.0
Note: Denotes large donor individual funds raised through August 25th of 2008 and 2010 respectively. Data compiled by Smart Politics.

And if any more proof was needed, O'Donnell's outsider status vis-à-vis Castle is cemented by the fact that while Castle raised nearly $70,000 in large donor funds from within Washington D.C., not a single D.C. resident gave such money to O'Donnell's campaign this cycle.

To what extent Palin's endorsement and O'Donnell's primary victory has enhanced her support among the mama grizzly voting bloc around the country will be seen in the next round of FEC filings, due in October.

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: Run, Murkowski, Run? A Historical Review of Alaskan Statewide Write-in Campaigns
Next post: When Alaska and Delaware Come Full Circle

1 Comment


  • every state race, both for the congress and senate, has national importance...when a congressman in new york (or any other state) affects me in california, i should have a say in that new york congressman's race...when senators are cutting deals and taking money from 49 states that specifically subsidizes 1 state (how about nebraska, louisianna, etc) then those races are evryones business...this country needs to go back to states rights, adhere to the constitution and stop the spending.

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

    Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

    Political Crumbs

    Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

    Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


    Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

    Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting