It might all come down to money

John Ellis makes the trenchant point that the Republican primaries might all come down to who has money and how much of Mitt Romney's personal fortune he's willing to spend.

1. All of the Republican candidates, with the exception of Romney, are broke. What money they have left they are deploying in South Carolina and Florida and hoping that the results there will enable them to raise more money to compete in the February 5th Super Tuesday contests. McCain is perhaps the least vulnerable to money woes, because he has the greatest name recognition nationally from his 2000 campaign. But if he loses in SC, he will be strapped financially in Florida. Huckabee has never had much money and knows how to live off the land, but his inability to mount a massive Michigan television advertising campaign consigned him to a weak third place finish there, as opposed to a 20-plus percentage point third place finish. The latter result would have helped him a lot in South Carolina.

Thompson's campaign is one big roll of the dice on South Carolina. You can't lose to Ron Paul in Michigan and Mike Huckabee in South Carolina and hope to be taken seriously. His whole fund-raising strategy is dependent on his finishing at least second in SC. Rudy Giuliani has somehow managed to spend all his money without having actually competed in any of the early primary states. He finished behind Ron Paul in Michigan. He has to win Florida or he's a goner.

2. In a weird way, the GOP presidential primary campaign now hinges on Mitt Romney. More specifically, it hinges on whether Romney will be willing to spend as much of his personal fortune as necessary to win the GOP nomination. That could amount to as much as $40 million, on top of the $17 million he has already contributed to the cause. If he does decide to fully fund his own campaign, then he will be able to outspend his rivals on television advertising by as much as 10-to-1 in state after state after state (think: February 5th). If someone asks you: "can Mitt Romney win the GOP nomination?" ask them: "is he willing to write the check?"

A big win in South Carolina could help McCain get the funding he needs, but Thompson can't keep campaigning by living off of free media coverage and internet outreach if he doesn't do well in South Carolina. The terrain just is too spread out once we get into February's campaign season.

This raises an interesting point. What if we had a campaign and the candidates couldn't flood the airwaves with advertising? What if people had to decide just by what information they gathered from either the media or the internet or debates or just by their own instincts on whom they like? It probably won't happen. The leading candidate will get more money or Mitt will stop unlocking his personal vault. And I'm not thrilled by depending on just the media to cover these guys. And, as Ellis notes, the media will have to cut down soon on their coverage of all the candidates. They can't afford to still keep covering candidates who are sinking in the polls. If I lived in one of those February 5 states, I sure wouldn't miss being inundated by ads.

Ellis makes an additional interesting point.

7. Who says that Edwards Hurts Obama? One constant refrain in news "analysis" of the Democratic presidential campaign is that the continuation of the Edwards campaign hurts Sen. Obama's campaign by "dividing" the "anti-Clinton" vote. Really? I would argue that Edwards helps Obama in South Carolina (and elsewhere) by draining white male votes away from Senator Clinton, thus making it all but impossible for her to win definitively in any state with significant African-American voting populations. I don't hear anyone in the Obama campaign calling for Senator Edwards to get out of the race. And for good reason.