WASHINGTON — While Democrats were locked in an unseemly intramural squabble this week, bickering about whether they could lose control of the House in the fall, Republicans were unusually quiet.

It turns out that they had a bigger task at hand: tabulating an impressive set of midyear fund-raising figures.

In red states and blue states — nearly a dozen competitive Senate races in all — Republicans raised more money over the last three months than their Democratic challengers. Yes, Democrats will argue, some of their candidates have more money in the bank. But the financial reports filed Thursday offer the latest indication of the momentum and enthusiasm advantage that Republicans carry four months before Election Day.

Take, for example, Sharron Angle, who is trying to defeat Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader. In 42 days, after winning the Republican primary, she raised $2.29 million.

“I am absolutely overwhelmed that in an economy where people are hurting, they are supporting our campaign with their money and their time,” Ms. Angle said in a statement. “That’s how much people want to retire Harry Reid.”

To be sure, raising money to unseat the Democratic majority leader is hardly the best measure of Republican intensity. (There is no better Republican motivational tool than the prospect of helping to knock off Mr. Reid, except perhaps the notion of defeating Speaker Nancy Pelosi.) Mr. Reid ended June with nearly $9 million on hand, but he fell slightly short of Ms. Angle in second-quarter fundraising.

Yet the more ominous signs of Democratic fundraising troubles could be found elsewhere.

In the Illinois Senate race, where six years ago Barack Obama easily won the seat, the Republican candidate, Mark Kirk, has raised nearly four times as much as his rival, Alexi Giannoulias. Even though Mr. Kirk spent much of the last two months apologizing for exaggerating his military record, he still raised $2.3 million. Mr. Giannoulias, meanwhile, raised less than half that amount, despite a parade of Obama administration officials coming to Chicago to help raise money.

In the Ohio Senate race, where Republican George Voinovich is retiring, Rob Portman, the former Republican congressman and budget director for President George W. Bush, raised $2.65 million and has more than eight times as much money in the bank as his Democratic challenger, the state’s lieutenant governor, Lee Fisher.

In the Indiana Senate race, where Democrat Evan Bayh is stepping down, Dan Coats, a former Republican senator-turned-lobbyist, raised more than twice as much as his Democratic rival, Brad Ellsworth. Democrats were quick to point out that Mr. Ellsworth has slightly more money in the bank, yet it was difficult to argue the trend lines were good for Democrats.

The news was so bleak for the Democratic Senate candidate in Louisiana, Representative Charlie Melancon, that his campaign waited until Thursday night to report that he raised $415,000, which is less than some aggressive House candidates raise. He ended July with $2.3 million in the bank, but not thanks to many fresh contributions.

On its own, of course, money can neither win nor lose a political race. And it does not answer the question of which party will control Congress after November.

But Democratic fund-raising officials have been quietly expressing concern over the difficult struggle that many of their candidates have had raising money over the last three months. The health care debate may have been a Democratic legislative victory, but it became a Republican fund-raising boon in the wake of the new law in April and May. A weak economy also has cut into political contributions.

In two of the most competitive House races in Ohio, the Democratic incumbents raised less money than their Republican challengers. The story was repeated in several districts across the country. (Republicans conceded, though, that at least some veteran Democrats who also had been seen as vulnerable, outpaced their Republican challengers, and appeared to be in a better position for the four-month march to Election Day.)

In even the best of circumstances, polls can be fleeting, so midyear fundraising reports offer another way to gauge the state-of-play in races.

Not all news was disappointing to Democrats. Senator Barbara Boxer raised $4.6 million and ended July with $11.3 million on hand — a figure that dramatically outpaced her Republican rival, Carly Fiorina, who finished a challenging primary and ended the second quarter with $950,000 in the bank.

Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, who survived a bruising Democratic primary and a runoff election, raised $2.7 million over the last three months and has $1.8 million on hand. Her Republican rival, Representative John Boozman, raised $623,000.

Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, who faces a Democratic primary next month, raised $1.25 million over the last three months and has $2.6 million in the bank, nearly three times more than his leading Republican rival.

The importance of having more money in the bank — many vulnerable Democratic candidates still do — cannot be overstated. Why? A large share of political contributions are spent on television advertising, so a financial advantage in July means that candidates can air their ads sooner, trying to capitalize — or fight against — the fall political winds.

“There’s no doubt that this fundraising success is fueled by the increasing national enthusiasm from Republican and independent voters who are prepared to hold the Democrats accountable,” Rob Jesmer, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, wrote in a memorandum to supporters on Thursday evening.

Until now, Democrats have enjoyed a financial advantage, particularly thanks to the aggressive fund-raising at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee. And when their respective financial reports are filed on Tuesday, the groups are still likely to outpace their Republican counterparts.

But as Republicans work to win control of Congress, the less-than-stellar fund-raising by some Democratic candidates means that the party’s re-election committees will have to step in to lend a hand. But there is never enough money to go around, particularly in a year with so many competitive races, so party leaders must decide which candidates to prop up and which to cut loose.

And the latest financial reports could provide a roadmap for how to proceed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/us/politics/17zeleny.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print