As he moves unceasingly toward the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has cast himself as the only GOP candidate with an organization hefty enough to take on President Obama's campaign juggernaut.
"The other guys are nice folks, but they haven't organized a campaign with a staff, the organization, the fundraising capacity to actually beat Barack Obama," Romney said this month on Fox News. "I have."
But an examination of how the two campaigns have spent their money in the last year starkly illustrates the huge advantage Obama will have in mounting a ground operation to identify voters and get them to the polls in November.
Spared a primary opponent, the president's reelection campaign by the end of February had pumped nearly $79 million into laying the groundwork for the general election, deploying staff to far-flung corners of the country such as Laramie, Wyo., and Lebanon, N.H., as part of an ambitious, tech-savvy field effort.
Romney, mired for months in a contentious primary, has not yet devoted substantial resources to a national field program. Of the $68 million spent so far by his campaign, $25.4 million went to fundraising and media ads in primary states, elements that â while key to his front-runner standing â may not translate into lasting gains.
He has spent only $5 million on staff, compared with the $20 million Obama has doled out for his campaign workers. For its reach, Romney's campaign plans to lean on the Republican Party, which has yet to set up shop in states long inhabited by Obama operatives.
The spending data and interviews with campaign officials suggest that a Romney-Obama race would be a clash between distinct political philosophies, one that would test the power of an aerial bombardment through television ads against an in-person voter mobilization months in the making.
Both campaigns will employ commercials and ground organizers to make their cases, of course. But media use is the specialty of top Romney campaign officials Matt Rhoades, Eric Fehrnstrom, Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer, who have backgrounds in communications and ad production. And Romney is poised to benefit from intense air cover provided by Restore Our Future, a "super PAC" that has already spent $37 million, largely on TV ads attacking his GOP rivals.
Romney campaign strategists acknowledge they have a small field operation, by design. Instead of hiring get-out-the-vote organizers around the country, a lean team has leapfrogged in and out of the various primary states. That has kept costs down, but it also means Romney has a smaller national footprint than Obama.
Campaign political director Rich Beeson said he had kept some staff in states that would be key for the general election. But he said the bulk of the voter registration and mobilization program for the fall would be handled by the Republican National Committee.
"It has the infrastructure in place," he said. "We're taking care of business in the primary, setting up infrastructure in states that make sense in a general. But at the end of the day, I'm not losing sleep over having a general election field operation. I know that's being taken care of."
That's a very different philosophy from that of Obama and his top political aides, David Plouffe and David Axelrod. In 2008, Obama's operation wrested the Democratic nomination on the strength of an unprecedented field operation that â in tandem with massive fundraising â lifted the former community organizer over the establishment candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The campaign appears poised to be even more aggressive this year. Volunteers are registering new voters in an effort to expand the pool of supporters. They are knocking on doors to identify likely voters â an activity that usually occurs in the summer or fall. And the reelection effort has begun blanketing battleground states with field offices, including 18 in Florida, 13 in Pennsylvania and eight in Iowa. In the process, Obama's apparatus has locked up local Democratic operatives across the country much earlier than expected.