![[freedomtowernight_edited.jpg]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i7tmcOiJ4hc/RoJ3zn0O-9I/AAAAAAAAAFw/5Y4WaIwDd6k/s1600/freedomtowernight_edited.jpg)
Where's the Money?
The Miami Herald has a feature spread today on Florida Presidential campaign fundraising. Based on Herald stats, three-quarters of leading Democratic donors in 2004 have pledged their hard-earned money to a Democratic candidate. Republicans are much less enthusiastic, with only a third of 2004 donors contributing this go-around.
As the article indicates, the reasons for this are fairly obvious. You have BDS and the Democrats' zeal to take over the White House. You also have the muddy field of Republican candidates, none of which inspire much confidence among die-hard Reps.
I think the primary reason was only mentioned in passing by the article.
It's called "Waiting For Fred".
As the article indicates, the reasons for this are fairly obvious. You have BDS and the Democrats' zeal to take over the White House. You also have the muddy field of Republican candidates, none of which inspire much confidence among die-hard Reps.
I think the primary reason was only mentioned in passing by the article.
It's called "Waiting For Fred".
Labels: 2008 Elections
posted by Robert at 11:04 AM
4 Comments:
2 things. They may be waiting for Fred, but the money will still not be there as big for him in any case. I think the R donors have sticker shock from the last two presidentials. The administration's poor performance (preception?) has dug a hole for the party so deep, that some are questioning the party's ability to delay the inevitable pendulum-swing another four years. So they fold their money and put it back in their pocket for another day when the odds are better.
Also, while Obama has proven a credible contender for the D nomination thus far, many Rs are counting on HRC to be the nominee. Her negatives, already well established, act to make the R money much more efficient, and therefore, less of it necessary. For the aforementined sticker-shocked contributor, it makes business sense.
Put the two together, a general pessimism over the R prospects, along with a notion that you might win the election on the cheap. The result? Republican death spiral.
I won't even get into the whole identity crisis thing.
The weakness of the candidates is the main issue for Republican voters. The Democrats don't have any strong candidates, either. However, the Democrats probably have an edge because many voters are tired of the current Republican administration, and the Democratic base is fired up from being in opposition (the BDS factor). Overwhelming most of these factors is the fact that a large, maybe unprecedented, fraction of Americans holds both parties in contempt.
But we will muddle through, as usual. Probably Clinton or Giuliani will be the next president.
No question about the general contempt of major political parties, Jonathan. But I don't think you can assess the lack of money on the basis of a lack of starpower alone. I mean, despite their relative strength or weakness, the existing candidates establish the market from which those who are compelled to "choose" must choose from. I don't mean voters, at least not in the election/poll sense, rather the institutional interests who vote with their contribution dollar. Institutional interests, whether business, labor, the trial bar, etc., place their bets on candidates based not just on ideology, but as a hedge, in case ideology does not match the result. Still, money is a resource, and it must be managed efficiently. And sometimes, the greatest return on investment is that where an investment was never made. Nothing ventured, nothing lost, sort of.
Trust me .. as I posted on CAP, Fred squandered his opportunity and will end up like Wesley Clark.
Many of the insiders I've spoken to in the GOP are not very optimistic with him.
But heck, I've been wrong before.
Post a Comment
<< Home