Ara over at E Pluribus Unum sez (if I understand him) that the big money always wins in elections.
In fact, he even did a little thought experiment:
Imagine that we're running for the Senate from Iowa. Imagine that Dick Morris is your senior campaign consultant if you like. [shiver]
Now, imagine that you are standing in a room where there are two stacks of money on two tables. One table holds a stack of money totaling $2.5 million. The other table holds a stack of money totaling $5 million. You are free to choose whichever pile on one condition: your opponent will get the stack you leave behind.
So, which one do you choose?
I'd say that's not the point. To quote Sun-Tzu: "A lion will attack an ant with all of his power." In other words, it's human nature to take the $5 million, no matter whether it affects the election or not.
But that's not the real point. The real point is that Howard "I have a Scream" Dean spent upwards of $60 million up until the Iowa caucus (with Iowa getting a lions' share), but Kerry still beat him like a red-headed stepchild in K-Mart in every state.
Now, what was that about big money again? Heh.
Comments (2)
Nice try, grasshopper, but you're still not getting it.
Dean Esmay said that "beyond a certain threshold amount, more money doesn't insure your success."
Of course not; but that doesn't stop anyone from trying to generate more and more campaign revenue. NO ONE says, "Stop the fundraising! We have enough."
Similarly, if asked the question, "How much money do you intend to raise?" the smart candidate says, "As much as I can."
That's all I'm saying.
The ones who are good at fundraising raise a lot; the less talented fundraisers get fewer dollars. One thing is for sure; over time, there is more and more money attracted to the business of running for office.
Does that mean that the talented fundraisers win all the elections? Not necessarily. But it sure as hell helps! And in an environment where more and more money is being attracted into the business of running for office, the talented fund-raisers have so many more options that they DO have an advantage.
Bottom line? The desire for more shapes everything a candidate does. And it shapes everything that a campaign becomes.
Posted by Ara Rubyan | February 18, 2004 12:53 PM
Posted on February 18, 2004 12:53
Well sure and every now and then a small market team makes it to the World Series, but typically what is the result of a well funded campaign vs one not so well off. We hear about the David and Goliath stories because they are well theyre news. If the better funded campaigns only won on average around 50% of the races I would concede your point, but thats just not the case.
Posted by Rick DeMent | February 20, 2004 5:28 PM
Posted on February 20, 2004 17:28