Would Obama be Just as Popular if He Raised Only Half The $$ of Clinton?? Vice Versa??

[Blackhatjack]

I continue to be amazed how people equate overall popularity of a candidate with the amount of $$ their campaign is able to raise.

While there is a connection between popularity and the desire of supporters to give their campaigns money, it is easily distorted by the giving of large sums of money by rich and powerful special interest groups.

If you like your candidate and want to confirm that your candidate is liked best by the voting populace, you should not rely upon $$ raised as the support for your argument.

We all know how 'K Street' got behind the present Repub Administration and distorted the outcome of those elections.

Let's debate issues and characteristics in deciding who should be the party nominee, not how much money they raised. If we continue to keep score in terms of money raised we are sure to maintain an election process that is subject to the influence of special interests groups to the detriment of the AMerican people.

[Cant trust em]

1. one million donors have supported Obama

that's not reflective of amount raised, just a high number of people who have donated. Seems like a pretty good barometer to me.

[Blackhatjack]

4. I agree with the 'number of people donating' construct as a measure of popularity...

... and in fact, that is the best method of gauging 'candidate popularity.'

Keep in mind that people at the poverty level have preferences which they vote on, but rarely contribute anything to a candidate's campaign.

[Cant trust em]

6. donation/donors as a gauge is only effective

for comparing one candidate to another. it certainly doesn't make them popular amongst the entire electorate.

[democrattotheend]

2. I don't think the AMOUNT is a good measure of popularity

But the number of donors is. The fact that Obama has gotten a million people to donate to his campaign is pretty remarkable. If candidates can raise this much money in small donations, Democrats might actually be able to be less beholden to special interests. I am not saying all of Obama's money has come from small donations, but a lot of it has, and it's pretty incredible how many people have donated.

[tekisui]

3. You make a good point.

Issues are what matter, not money raised. The whole idea of a $100 million primary, and a $500+ million General is absurd.

My only additional point, it does matter how that money is managed.

[Blackhatjack]

7. You made an excellent point ... the system is broken if it takes $600 mil to become President...

And the dollars raised go up exponentially every election cycle.

We have to move to some form of mandatory public financing in the future, which would give Democrats a historical advantage --which is why Repubs have opposed it at every turn.

[Bicoastal]

5. I strongly disagree--I don't care that he's RAISED this money...

...I care that he hasn't SPENT it all, like the Clinton campaign wasted their huge war-chest. A big part of a President's job is balancing the national budget and paying off the debt--how can I trust Clinton to do this if she has trouble managing the spending for her own election campaign?

[Blackhatjack]

9. Any candidate running for national office has a 'financial cookie monster' along for the ride...

No matter how much $$ is raised, the 'financial cookie monster' has to be fed, and it is a constant struggle to raise enough money to cross the finish line.

Campaigns today keep close tabs on not only daily and cumulative receipts, but 'anticipated fundraising' and the ability to obtain loans based on those anticipated receipts.

If we expect our nominee to handle the national budget expenditures based upon how they handle their campaign financies, we are sure to be disappointed. There are very few similarities between the two.

[TheDonkey]

8. What is you definition of popularity? His ability to raise that amnt of money shows his popularity

So if he only had half of that, no he wouldn't be as popular, Hillary would be.

What $$$ does not guarantee is victories though (ie. Dean, he was popular but couldn't get traction to win) so Obama so far has had both.

[Blackhatjack]

10. So you are fine with using 'dollars' to measure a candidate's 'popularity'??

Many people contribute to both candidats' campaigns in a big way because they want to be associated with the eventual winner.

Does that mean they are equally popular? I don't think so.

It does mean they want something in return for their donations -- in the least to be remembered as a supporter when the winner takes office.

[MidwestTransplant]

11. I only like him because he raised so much money.

[Cha]

12. Yeah, Show me

the money!:P

[slick8790]

13. Uhhh....Stop and think for a moment, shall we?

Perhaps he's raised that much money because he's a popular candidate? Sheesh.

[Blackhatjack]

14. Stop and think for a moment ... Maybe he is more popular than $$ raised indicates...

or are you content to measure his popularity only by the number of $$ he has raised?

OF course the same argument could be made regarding Clinton.

[gravity]

18. $$ money doesn't measure popularity

But I bet you that there is a strong correlation between being popular and raising money

[Blackhatjack]

19. That is the argument Repubs have made for the last 30 yrs....

.... but I don't believe their candidates were more popular than Democratic candidates because they always raised more money from corporate interests.

[Muttocracy]

15. part of it is a chicken and egg question because of the "viability" thing

Back in December, eople were saying Biden and Dodd (my favorites) were not viable in part because they didn't have enough $$ raised, so people didn't want to "waste" a vote on them or "waste" contributions. So things tend to snowball one way or the other.

[Blackhatjack]

And that is where mandatory public financing should come in....

IF all the candidates are placed on an even playing field, given the same amount of resources, they could compete fairly and the special interests willing to pay big bucks for influence would be out of business.

We are never going to get our government back as long as it takes $600 mil to run a successful Presidential campaign.

[Muttocracy]

17. absolutely nt

[Blackhatjack]

16. And that is where mandatory public financing should come in....

IF all the candidates are placed on an even playing field, given the same amount of resources, they could compete fairly and the special interests willing to pay big bucks for influence would be out of business.

We are never going to get our government back as long as it takes $600 mil to run a successful Presidential campaign.