How Important Is Fundraising?

[StrongBad]

I think nobody will disagree with me when I say that Dean is a fundraising machine compared to the other candidates in the present field.

How much weight should such a quality have when considering a candidate? Let us say Dean is hypothetically less "electable" than Clark or Kerry (as recent polls indicate). Would his ample stash of funds compensate for this deficit or would it be wiser to stick with a candidate with less money but broader appeal to the general American citizenry?

[StrongBad]

1. Kick

Would like to hear some opinions before I hit the sack for the night...

[sleipnir]

2. Pretty important

You can't get your message out if you don't have any bucks to pay the piper. Campaign support staff, despite contrary claims, doens't come cheap. While some are volunteer, others draw salarys that would make MBA's jelous. One of the big drains can be the even present payroll. Advertisement, is also a big drain.

It's not the end of the world for a low end candidate, but look at Mosley_Braun, she's in the dumps money wise, even remarked/joked, she was barely able to keep her office doors open. Lack of fundrasing will be the real reason why Bruan, Sharpton, Graham and possibly the K-man will drop out.

[stickdog]

3. Which other candidates supposedly have a broader appeal

to the the general American citizenry and why?

[StrongBad]

4. Stick with my hypothetical...

...which suggests that Clark and Kerry are (based on one recent poll).

Note that I do not necessarily believe that these 2 are the most electable of the bunch, but for sake of discussion say they are.

So should Dean be the automatic nominee because he has a war chest that will be much much greater than the other frontrunners?

[Mairead]

5. The question boils down to: is it an election or an auction?

I'd hope that we make it an election, but certainly a lot of the conventional 'wisdom' makes it sound as though it's an auction. Of course, if it is an auction, then Bush wins.

[gottaB]

6. 2 parter

1. Fund raising is vital--to a degree.

2, You shouldn't consider it all. Especially you, my fellow netizen and DUer. You have resources at your fingertips that the average voter isn't connected to, not much anyway. I believe you have a responsibility to choose wisely, and I don't reckon it's wise to pick a candidate to win general election before choosing one to represent you in the primary.

Whoever wins the nomination will have huge support and momentum. That's what counts. Or consider this fact: You can back a candidate because that candidate appears to be popular at the moment, or is raising lots of dough, but that's no guarantee that your candidate will win the nomination let alone the general election. Other candidates are also popular, or well-financed. And of course the electorate is fickle. Voter rolls expand and contract. It's not easy to predict.

As a voter and a citizen making predictions shouldn't be your first concern. Reasonable people can disagree I guess, but since you're asking, that's my two cents.

One more point. The media has a bank of seasoned campaign watchers that they call upon to evaluate candidates, and these people by and large look at fundraising as a crucial measure of popularity, viability, and worth. That is not an unbiased view. The "old" media has a definite interest in privileging the money chase: Most of that money will be going into their coffers. So take their conventional wisdom with a big fat grain of salt.

[SoCalDem]

7. If you are a rightwing repube, it's not as important

because you have the oppportunity to co-host any number of radio programs and get your message out for free.. Faux always has the welcom mat out, and Mellon-scaife & Regnery will always crank out some books for you..

BUT....

if you are dem, you MUST have money in order to BUY every stinking minute of time you get to put your platform out to the press, and then you have to buy EXTRA time to make up for all the snide comments that were made for hours after your original commercial ran..

and thn there's TV.. it's very expensive, and since there is no leftwing Faux network to give "quality" time to dems, there will always be a pitbull adversary whenever a dem is invited, so any TV time will have to be purchased in ad form..:(

It stinks BIG

[Orangepeel]

8. we need money and grassroots support. No other way to win.

Much too large a percentage of the general American citizenry doesn't vote. Much of the general American citizenry didn't see much difference between bush and Gore.

The general American citizenry isn't stupid, but it doesn't care that much about politics. No matter who the candidate is, he or she will only win if WE reach out to the general American citizenry and convince them to vote for our candidate.

Traditionally, that takes two things -- running someone with an appealing message and a WHOLE lot of money to get the message across.

This time, to compete with bush's hundreds of millions, we'll also need a strong grassroots effort to make phone calls, knock on doors, and talk to friends and neighbors one-on-one.

[Ellen Forradalom]

9. Our current system of electing a President

is drawn-out, Byzantine in its complexity, and horrifically expensive. Until the process is reformed to be relatively consistent, short and sweet, it's going to take a lot of money to navigate it.

And this time around the problem is much worse. Our opponent, Bush, is amassing the largest war chest in Presidential history with no primary to spend it on. It's brutal.

So yes, though the fundraising is distasteful, it's absolutely necessary.

[molly]

10. Tom Carper won here in Delaware with half the campaign

chest of his opponent.

[Ellen Forradalom]

11. I am hoping the same can be done for the office of President

but it's expensive any way you look at it.

[RandomUser]

12. Fundraising is importan, but not everything

Traditionally, democratic candidates have always been at a fundraising disadvantage. Yet nonetheless, they still get elected. That proves that the guy with more funds doesn't always win. But funds helps enormously. It's important, but not the deciding factor. Otherwise, only republicans would win elections.

[im4edwards]

13. obviously fundraising is huge

however once the candidate is set, the party will be able to bring its considerable resources to bear. It is imperative at that point that the candidate be considered electable or serious money won't come in.

In short, Dean's personal fundraising is helpful for his personal run for the nomination. It is less critical should he become the nominee.

If he is notably behind others head to head with Bush his money is no help. The party must listen to its membership but it must also keep its eyes on the prize.