Campaigns/Elections

Don't Follow the Money

|

Wash Times talks to former Howard Dean campaign hero Joe Trippi and others about early dollars and polls:

"Historically, the amount of money raised in the preprimary cycle has not been a good indicator of who wins the nomination," said Mr. Trippi, an adviser to former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

"Why so much attention by the press?" he said. "They can only report on two things at this early juncture in the race—polls and who's winning the fundraising race, neither of which, by the way, is a good indication of who wins."

In the 2004 Democratic race, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut "led in all the early polls in 2003 and Dean led in the money race by a wide margin, but neither of them came in first or second in the number of delegates at the convention in 2004," Mr. Trippi said.

"In 1984, former Vice President Walter Mondale had all the money in the world and a guy by the name of Gary Hart, who had message and not much money at all, beat him in the primaries and actually won more convention delegates. It took the party's superdelegates to put Mondale over the top," he said.

But:

This is not to say that strategists and analysts think money is an irrelevant factor in who wins next year's caucuses and primaries. Rather, they argue that the amount of money raised this early in the two-year marathon process is not a reliable basis on which to forecast who will be the strongest candidates in the state-by-state contests to come.

More here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Droopy Drawers Foes See Cracks in Opposition

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I knew it! The front runners are all raising more money than RON PAUL, but it doesn’t matter because it’s still early. On the other hand RON PAUL is sitting on more money than front runner JMcC, and that means he’s in great shape.

    PAUL ’08

  2. The importance of early fundraising is not in predicting the winner, but predicting the dropouts.

    The fundraising front-runner may not always win, but candidates below a certain fundraising level don’t win.

    The early fundraising data separates the contenders from the noncontenders, not the winners from the contenders.

  3. I agree with jb, and would add that the fundraising is an important indication of how much “real” support they have as opposed to lip-service support. Money may not be the determinant of who wins, but I think it’s safe to say that without at least a good stock of money, you have little chance of getting the all-important message out there.

  4. I agree about early dollars and polls not meaning much. But the question is, with the new primary schedule, what is early?

  5. Wow, this means Ron Paul probably will get the nomination!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.