Below, I have charted the amount of cash on hand held by each party's candidates* in each "battleground state."** This can provide some insight into the status of the election, and additionally can indicate how much money a presidential candidate will have to invest in a state to make up for his party's deficit.

Leans Democrat

Deleware (No Senate race)
Democrats: $39
Republicans: $1,223,343

Maine (No Senate race)
Democrats: $899,560
Republicans: $329,999

Michigan (No Senate race)
Democrats: $2,274,095
Republicans: $4,913,566

Oregon
Democrats: $7,420,414
Republicans: $1,570,897

Washington
Democrats: $10,815,640
Republicans: $4,406,961

Tossup

Florida
Democrats: $12,856,358
Republicans: $17,586,336

Iowa
Democrats: $954,903
Republicans: $8,014,164

Minnesota (No Senate race)
Democrats: $1,795,823
Republicans: $3,312,234

Missouri
Democrats: $2,698,171
Republicans: $9,104,437

Nevada
Democrats: $6,430,976
Republicans: $1,887,210

New Hampshire
Democrats: $296,282
Republicans: $2,748,156

New Mexico (No Senate race)
Democrats: $1,051,318
Republicans: $2,232,647

Ohio
Democrats: $4,621,973
Republicans: $9,437,012

Pennsylvania
Democrats: $6,431,954
Republicans: $8,460,946

Wisconsin
Democrats: $5,897,241
Republicans: $5,253,373

Leans Republican

Colorado
Democrats: $3,460,382
Republicans: $4,967,663

North Carolina
Democrats: $7,251,497
Republicans: $9,581,192

West Virginia (No Senate race)
Democrats: $2,007,464
Republicans: $890,247

Methodology
All statistics from Political Money Line.
* - In the case of primaries, I chose the candidate with the most funds (i.e. in the FL Senate race I used numbers from Peter Deutsch and Mel Martinez, though Betty Castor, Alex Penelas, or Bill McCollum could be the nominees). Additionally, I did not count cash on hand for incumbent Senators who are not up for election.
** - As determined by Charlie Cook of the non-partisan Cook Political Report.

---

What do all of these numbers mean, aside from statistical noise?

The first point to note is that these numbers reflect incumbency; in states with more Republican Congressmen, the Republicans should have more cash on hand. Also, candidates often spend much of their cash on hand, but they rarely spend it all. The second important point to note is that although cash is extremely important in elections, it does not mean everything. The candidate who spends more money generally wins, but this does not always prove true (in 1998, Senator Al D'Amato outspent Congressman Chuck Schumer by a $24 million to $16 million margin, but still lost). Lastly, although down-ticket advertising can have some effects on the Presidential race and the funds Congressional candidates put into coordinated campaigns are important, it is still important for a Presidential candidate to spend heavily in a state if he wants to win. These points aside, we can learn a lot from these numbers.

The most important point I garner from this information is that the Democrats are in a better monetary situation in the three Republican-leaning states than the Republicans are in the five Democratic-leaning ones. As a result, John Kerry is already at an advantage when it comes to picking up red states relative to George W. Bush.

This doesn't mean that John Kerry is sure to win in Colorado, North Carolina, or West Virginia. Nonetheless, if Kerry is able to parlay his slight advatage into a win in one of these three states, it will be that much harder for President Bush to win another four years.