Huge amounts of money have been raised by the ’08 presidential hopefuls, according to reports being released today. Mitt Romney – who is running at three percent in the latest Galllup – alone brought in 23 million! [Who gives him all that money with those numbers?-ed. Maybe it's a special award for good hair.]
But I have a question: does this matter? Or, more specifically, does this matter very much? We live in an era of all-news-internet-news-cable-news-more-and-more-news-yadda-yadda-until-we’re-saturated. Don’t we all get enough of Rudy-Hillary-Barack-McCain-and now Fred Thompson just because they are there? Do these people actually need to pay for publicity? Enough already. [But what about the minor candidates? Don't they need a leg up?-ed Ron Paul has as many internet supporters as L. Ron Hubbard.]
So maybe fundraising is not as important as it’s cracked up to be – except to the media, of course. It gives them something to write about.
Well, it provides good employment for all the political consultants and strategists. Those are the folks who make out like bandits however the vote goes and they are seeking full time employment. It’s just another example of how specialization creeps into all aspects of a mature economy
Better news for Iowa and New Hampshire than an increase in federal farm subsidies, that’s my take…
Seriously, that’s a lot of walking-around money.
Hillary’s money does not translate into electoral support. Why? Because she has a horrid public image and dismal poll numbers. And those will remain because the smarmy stench of Boobus Americanus remains now six years later.
Personally, I find it absurd the amount of attention being given to the candidates this far out from the primaries. Wake me up in January.
As for the amount of money raised, it doesn’t necessarily translate into winning the nomination. I remember back in 1980 how John Connelly was so well off with campaign contributations from his oil buddies that he had a lock on the nomination. His $8 million dollar war chest was far larger than any other Republican candidate’s. In the end, I think he won a total of one delegate to the convention. The Press made it a point to show the delegate and call him the “Eight Million Dollar Man.”
Having money is better than not having money, but it doesn’t automatically equate to winning an election or a nomination.
Roger, I think you are completely missing something about Ron Paul. The reason that Ron Paul’s candidacy is an internet-only candidacy is because the MSM has for decades now had an unwritten rule: no libertarian candidate will ever get press. Therefore, except for the internet, there is absolutely no mention of Ron Paul on any MSM outlet. The only way that Paul can get notice outside of the internet is to purchase advertising, period.
Henry Bowman, I think it’s the reverse. Ron Paul is an oddity who collects far more MSM attention than he deserves. I saw him the other day on the Bill Maher show, grinning like the cat that just ate the canary. A sideshow.
Do these people actually need to pay for publicity? Yes, to better demonize opponents. Yes, to better fight back against the demonization. Yes, especially for Republicans, non-MSM designated candidate, to better articulate his views, and fight against MSM’s distortions. Btw, her views are always approved by the MSM, sometimes even polished, spinned, and improved before they are broadcasted on the news.
This may come as a shock to the politically aware but Presidential elections are often won, or lost, on the basis of name awareness. Hillary is a name to those (a huge percentage of the population) who barely give politics a thought. Enough such people vote, once every four years, and vote primarily on the basis of familiarity with a name, to swing the election to the famous, or celebrity, candidate.
So, in the runnup to the election, a non-name like Fred Thompson, for example (he’s a name to the politically aware but barely registers with the hoi polloi) would have to have a huge war chest merely to make himself familiar to the non-political voter.
Even Thompson isn’t the best example due to his acting career. But Mitt Romney? An absolute unknown to the non-politicals.
Ergo the importance of the war chest.
The money is extremely important.
First, it allows candidates to buy time to define themselves.
Second and perhaps more important, it allows candidates to define their opponents – usually through negative attack ads.
Given that 25% of the electorate says Hillary gives them the creeps, she is going to use all of that money in an attempt to drive the negatives up on her opponents so that she has a chance.
To think that no one would give a hoot about Hillary and her socialistic views if she had not married Slick Willy.
Given that a huge percentage of the electorate knows little about economics, geo-politics or history, the money will go to influence the perceptions of this relatively uninformed segment.
I guess that comes with living in an ADD world.
JK Ribera,
Perhaps Bill Maher thinks of himself as mainstream, but few watch him. When I see stories about Ron Paul on one of the CBS, NBC, or ABC news shows, I’ll be convinced of your assertion. But I won’t see such, because such outlets do indeed have an unwritten rule not to discuss libertarians.
Where can I read this unwritten rule?
My Congressional district hosted the Gerlach vs Murphy contest for a House seat in this past election cycle.
Frankly, this race, being one of a dozen of so contestable races, was the host of more money than anyone should ever spend for a Congressional seat.
After a while, the radio and TV ads became some thick that you shut off the radio or changed channels when you saw one coming, even for the candidate that you liked.
At the end of the day, Murphy lost for the second time.