Reply
Fri 4 Jan, 2008 06:27 pm
So much (for now) for the overpowering stranglehold of money over the election process in the most opulently-funded primary season ever.
Think about it:
Winner: Huckabee - the single poorest fundraiser among past and present Republican frontrunners for 2008 - and some non-frontrunners
Winner: John McCain (who's heading for a victory in NH) - Almost went bankrupt this summer and is still cash-strapped
Loser: Mitt Romney - the ultimate money candidate, in more ways than one
Loser: Rudy Giuliani - the well-funded national frontrunner through much of the year, heading down the drain now
Winner: John Edwards (OK, strategically a loser after his second place finish, of course - but still with a result in hand that was much better than expected or polled for) - the guy who'd have to rely on public financing in the generals because he couldnt keep up with the money race
Loser: Hillary Clinton - the Democratic power candidate, who systematically kept up with Obama's spectacular fundraising
Exception that confirms the rule: Barack Obama - the Democratic caucus winner who broke all fundraising records
(Random assertion of the day, brought to you by nimh..)
"Winner: John McCain (who's heading for a victory in NH) - Almost went bankrupt this summer and is still cash-strapped "
Is it because of this?
http://www.wmsa.net/People/john_mccain/ariz-republic_chap_V_1999.htm
nimh
We'll see what happens from here on out.
An increasingly common notion re this election is that it is being driven by a serious and pervasive desire for change. That seems right to me. And it gives an enormous boost to anyone running who represents change and it gives a significant disadvantage to those candidates who people associate with the past or things as they are.
Clearly all of this has worked to decrease the effectiveness of money and organization as factors.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace