ELECTION 08 - THE MONEY
POST PICKED UP BY CNN POLITICS.COM (bottom of page click on From The Blogs )
For the last several days election 08 politics has been dominated not by issues, candidate forums or policy statements but by how much each candidate has raised over the last quarter. Rather than being concerned with WHAT a candidate is saying or promising, which in truth is what will actually effect the voter, the news media has been totally preoccupied with the announcement by each candidate concerning how much money that they have raised and turning that into a perceived referendum on that candidate.
Has a Presidential Election become so tied to money in today's political atmosphere that money has become a deciding factor as to how the people will vote ? The answer to that is a definite maybe but not for the reasons that one might think. Voters are still concerned more about issues and the stance that a candidate takes as opposed to how much money they can raise but money does play into the mix in that he/she who has the most money can buy the most coverage in the form of advertising. But dollars still do not equate to a vote.
Do dollar amounts even determine who is the leading candidate with voters ? Not necessarily. One prime example is the 2004 Democrat run for the nomination. At this same point in the election cycle Howard Dean was out raising John Kerry nearly 2 to 1 as far as dollars but as we all know Kerry was the one that out distanced Dean in the Primaries and went on to get the Democrat nomination.
In both parties in the 08 cycle the front runner in fund raising is not equating to a front runner with the voters. In the latest Rasmussen Poll Fred Thompson leads the GOP field by two percentage points over Rudy Giuliani and by 12 over Mitt Romney. Romney though led the field in fund raising with Giuliani as the number two man and Thompson coming in third.
On the Democrat side Barack Obama has consistently been out raising Hillary Clinton yet Clinton maintains a 22 point lead over Obama. The fund raising results for this past quarter had Clinton out raising Obama for the first time. One has to wonder though in light of the recent fund raising scandals that have haunted her campaign, how much of this may be tainted money. Also the fact that she released her figures only after everyone else did makes one wonder if the fiqures are truly accurate.
Clinton is a savvy political hack who lives and dies by numbers. She understands the fixation on fund raising numbers and has taken a beating in the past because Obama has consistently out raised her. Could she have waited to release her figures after Obama to give her the opportunity to show higher figures and silence the fund raising critics while making her seem the lead candidate in all venues ? I would not put this past her given her win at all costs style and arrogance.
While fund raising is important for any race especially a Presidential one because of the astronomical cost to purchase enough advertising as well as mount a national campaign, the people are still the deciding factor in any election. Voters still decide how they will vote by the issues and what a candidate is saying and not how much money they have or will raise.
The issues are still number one in the mind of the voters and this fixation by the media and political pundits on fund raising as THE determining factor in who will win the White House in 2008 is not how we as a Nation will elect our next President. There are 127 million registered voters in The United States of which the majority DO NOT donate to any candidate or party. If buying a candidate through donating money was how elections were decided then the fund raising dollars would be far more than they are and candidates would be out begging for money only rather than discussing the issues and gaining our trust and our vote.
Ken Taylor
For the last several days election 08 politics has been dominated not by issues, candidate forums or policy statements but by how much each candidate has raised over the last quarter. Rather than being concerned with WHAT a candidate is saying or promising, which in truth is what will actually effect the voter, the news media has been totally preoccupied with the announcement by each candidate concerning how much money that they have raised and turning that into a perceived referendum on that candidate.
Has a Presidential Election become so tied to money in today's political atmosphere that money has become a deciding factor as to how the people will vote ? The answer to that is a definite maybe but not for the reasons that one might think. Voters are still concerned more about issues and the stance that a candidate takes as opposed to how much money they can raise but money does play into the mix in that he/she who has the most money can buy the most coverage in the form of advertising. But dollars still do not equate to a vote.
Do dollar amounts even determine who is the leading candidate with voters ? Not necessarily. One prime example is the 2004 Democrat run for the nomination. At this same point in the election cycle Howard Dean was out raising John Kerry nearly 2 to 1 as far as dollars but as we all know Kerry was the one that out distanced Dean in the Primaries and went on to get the Democrat nomination.
In both parties in the 08 cycle the front runner in fund raising is not equating to a front runner with the voters. In the latest Rasmussen Poll Fred Thompson leads the GOP field by two percentage points over Rudy Giuliani and by 12 over Mitt Romney. Romney though led the field in fund raising with Giuliani as the number two man and Thompson coming in third.
On the Democrat side Barack Obama has consistently been out raising Hillary Clinton yet Clinton maintains a 22 point lead over Obama. The fund raising results for this past quarter had Clinton out raising Obama for the first time. One has to wonder though in light of the recent fund raising scandals that have haunted her campaign, how much of this may be tainted money. Also the fact that she released her figures only after everyone else did makes one wonder if the fiqures are truly accurate.
Clinton is a savvy political hack who lives and dies by numbers. She understands the fixation on fund raising numbers and has taken a beating in the past because Obama has consistently out raised her. Could she have waited to release her figures after Obama to give her the opportunity to show higher figures and silence the fund raising critics while making her seem the lead candidate in all venues ? I would not put this past her given her win at all costs style and arrogance.
While fund raising is important for any race especially a Presidential one because of the astronomical cost to purchase enough advertising as well as mount a national campaign, the people are still the deciding factor in any election. Voters still decide how they will vote by the issues and what a candidate is saying and not how much money they have or will raise.
The issues are still number one in the mind of the voters and this fixation by the media and political pundits on fund raising as THE determining factor in who will win the White House in 2008 is not how we as a Nation will elect our next President. There are 127 million registered voters in The United States of which the majority DO NOT donate to any candidate or party. If buying a candidate through donating money was how elections were decided then the fund raising dollars would be far more than they are and candidates would be out begging for money only rather than discussing the issues and gaining our trust and our vote.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 10:28 AM
8 Comments:
Ken, I am absolutely impressed. I clicked on the link to CNN and saw this post! CONGRATULATIONS! At 5:00pm I will raise a glass of champagne in a toast to you! :)
It's a great post, btw, and I can see why they picked it up. Keep up the great work!
I'm so very proud of you.
Oh man I was watching CNN and I never got to see it, maybe I was out of the room at the time darn it.
Ken,
Woo Hoo I clicked the link and I saw it!
I'm proud of you too :-)
Of course now the CNN Nutballs will be visiting yoir blog lol
Get Ready!
Ken, I've dedicated a post to you. :)
Ken, I am so happy for you! This was a great post and you should be very proud!!
Hip, Hip, Hooray!!!!! :-)
Congratulations for being noticed by CNN!
You are absolutely right, Ken. At one point earliar this year, Hillary had raised far more money in one week than Obama. But, she had raised all of her money from less than 50,000 donors while Obama had over twice the donors. In my book, that says Barak Obama has more votes.
A friend of mine ran for local office, spent over $200,000 and lost to a guy who spent only $30,000. Senators and Congressman can be bought, but the price of the voting public is still priceless.
congrads!..quite the honor!
Post a Comment
<< Home