First quarter fundraising totals are out, and the cause of much interest in the blogorati. I’m pretty bored by the particulars, so I’ll point you Kos-way if you want to know about the controversy as to whether Hillary can spend her haul in the primary or not. Yowza.
The bigger question is what that money gets you. Seemingly ages ago, I said “The Grassroots Demand Better Hacks.” And heaven help us if all that money goes to another Bob Shrum kamikaze mission — or something like it. Kos and Jerome Armstrong famously dealt with the moribund Democratic consultant-culture in Crashing the Gate.
I seem to remember some folks saying one shouldn’t consider “electability” when choosing a candidate. No way — of course electability should be a big part of the equation. Otherwise you’re wasting your time. But while fundraising numbers are entertaining, electability is much more about how that money is spent. Candidates are like cars, and money is like gasoline: Some will get more mileage out of the fuel they’re given, some won’t.
So I’m heavily discounting the early fundraising numbers. These days, a good candidate can raise all the money he/she needs. For instance, if Gore somehow jumped in (about which I’m becoming more skeptical all the time), I’d bet he’d immediately get to parity with Hillary and Obama. Obama is charismatic and inspires loyalty, so he’s catching up with Hillary.
But the candidate — and the candidate’s campaign — comes first, not the money. Let’s all remember fondly the good old days of 1996:
“I have the most reliable friend you can have in American politics and that is ready money.”
— Phil Gramm
And Phil was out before New Hampshire, because he had no charisma and no message except for a harsh, eat-your-gruel Texas conservatism. Bob Dole was the Pillsbury Dough Boy by comparison, and still got crushed.
That’s why, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no Romney. Even though he’s considerably more charismatic than Phil, he gives it all up in blatant lack of principle.
The most reliable friend a candidate can have in politics is oneself — charisma, vision, the ability to inspire loyalty. After that, money. After that, get a dog.
…sure it’s important and you certainly are write about HOW it is spent also. But if the Net Roots is supposed to be about people-powered politics, why all the focus on the money and not the message or the engagement of the voters?
<
p>
With the same PREOCCUPATION with money…so-called net roots activists will turn into the same old bosses they belittle today.
why? it’s something to talk about. and it does matter. Plus, just because Kos is obsessed with it, doesnt’ mean the entire (or even most) of the netroots is. Kos will say himself that he’s particularly interested in electoral politics and not so much other things. Go over to mydd and you get the exact same complaints you just mentioned: chris bowers just wrote up a whole post about how the netroots should be wary of forking over the dough to people raising 10s of millions in the first quarter (and questioning/hoping it could be spent on developing the progressive blogosphere instead).
and the mainstream Democratic party for that matter can go pound sand. Kos and the party of “diversity” have shown me their true Nazi colors. Don’t come looking for money or support from me, ever.
Let’s understand something. Kos would sell us lil’ queer bois down the river if it would suit his electoral shenanigans. He showed that in the 2004 election, in which he supported a female homophobe out of South Dakota. And that’s one reason why I have no use for the net roots, the Kosses, or any of the other internet operatives.
<
p>
Kos’s only interest in his internet site is to advertise his availabilty as a campaign consultant. I have no interest in his availability as a campaign consultant. Certainly not as to homophobes.
world affairs daily in the smoke shack with Kathy( name made up to protect the innocent). I have been privledged to share her life (and her break up with a same sex partner) with mine. We are both into internet news and our discussions are very cool. It’s not the labels one can apply to a person it’s the humanity in that person!
I’m one of those people who have made that claim time after time again. However, I think I should explain it better: the notion of what’s “electable” is so wildly distorted that people make horrible decisions in the process. Are there unelectable candidates? Yes. Dennis Kucinich couldn’t win if he owned all of Diebold.
<
p>
However, there are often times – in a primary – several qualified, competent candidates. Trying to pick from Obama, Clinton, Edward or Richardson based on electability is absurd; they’re all electable. They raise millions. They have experience, solid backers and good accomplishments. None of them have done anything so horrible as to be thrown out of contention by the majority of America. None of them make too many gaffes.
<
p>
My main point when i say “vote for the guy you like” is that it’s difficult to see just how electable people are until after the election. A lot of people say Republicans were hoping Dean would be nominated last Presidential election, because he was the least electable, but knowing what we know now it seems as if he would have had done at least as well as Kerry – just by standing up stronger to Bush and having a clearer message on Iraq.
<
p>
So, electability is important, but not in the way people think it is – and it’s often difficult to gauge until the election is well and over. Perhaps I shouldn’t say “electability doesn’t matter” and say something more on the tunes of “be careful trying to decide who’s the most electable – and be wary of voting based on electability.”
The first GOP debate with 9 candidates is set up for May 9th.
<
p>
Anything on the Dem side yet?
but since I only watch Faux News, I guess I won’t be able to see it. Or something.
<
p>
Because by mentioning the “millions” and the “backers,” it seems like you’re falling into the same tautological trap that all “electability” analysis leads to: namely, that millions of dollars and solid backers makes one electable, and that being electable attracts millions of dollars and solid backers.
<
p>
What really matters is getting the popular media to anoint you early on so they can lessen the amount of actual reporting they have to do over the next 18 months. And despite the constant pounding to which you have subjected said media, you follow right along, snarkily dismissing Kucinich, and mentioning Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson as the only Dems running for president.
Didn’t I just argue mostly against that? I’m just saying that they all have similar abilities in whatever definition of electability someone has. Furthermore, while I don’t like the fact that money has a huge impact on politics, it’s a fact that money is and will be a big factor in the years to come. Being able to raise a fair amount of it is important. I don’t think you need Hillary or Obama money to win – and indeed, guys like Richardson raised enough to show that they can compete in that department too.
<
p>
Snarkily dismissing Kucinich? Let me get this straight: I’ll never make fun of Kucinich when I say that he will get my vote under NO circumstances. He couldn’t handle being Mayor of Cleveland, why on Earth would I risk giving him the reigns of the White House? Why can’t people fathom that a guy like Kucinich isn’t a bad candidate because they media says he is – but is a terrible candidate because the truth hurts?
<
p>
However, I don’t just pick the “annointed” candidate – and if anything, that’s what my initial reply was all about. Don’t just pick the ones the media tells you to. Right now, I see four decent dem candidates who are all “electable” – Richardson, Edwards, Obama and Clinton. More could get into the race. Some of them could leave. Who knows? However, none of them are “annointed” yet – and even the media has been having some fun playing up the race. Granted, they aren’t paying attention to Richardson and other candidates, but they certainly haven’t declared this thing for Hillary either.