Clinton's $11 Million Advantage - is it true that he/she with the most $$$ wins the Presidency?

[RiverStone]

I'm seeking a little perspective here and without a doubt, I can count on wise DUers to provide it. At first glance, reading about Hillary's large campaign cash advantage is a bummer (link's below); it seems the spoils of a hard fought contest should not always go to the person with the deepest pockets (or best connected to corporations). Alas, the operative word here is "should" because in reality, money - lots and lots of money - seems to be the driving force behind a candidates staying power and winning power. I'd imagine that rule applies both through the primaries and the general election.

But wait! Are there inspiring precedents out there where he/she with the most money did not win? In particular, in a Presidential Campaign? I'm seeking any hope that the almighty dollar is not always the almighty predictor of who will win. I seek that because so many have assumed for so long that Hillary's cash advantage is indeed that - a HUGE advantage. Though maybe not?

It would be really sad if say (for example), Barack Obama had to drop out regardless of the merits of his message, because he could not compete with the vast money machine that already drives HRC's candidacy. For the record, I'm still holding out hope that either Al Gore or Wes Clark jump into the frey; and I think Al could raise more millions in a weekend then many of his rivals could do in months. Though minus my wish list, it really bothers me that Obama or Kucinich are already at such the cash disadvantage.

Unless of course, I'm mistaken in my assumption that he/she with the most money wins. :shrug:


Please tell me I'm wrong!


* * * * * * * * * * *

Clinton aims to amass $75 million this year

NEW YORK (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has embarked on one of the more ambitious fundraising efforts, with a goal of raising $15 million by the end of March and amassing more than $75 million before 2008.

<snip>

"I don't think anyone can stop her. She's unstoppable -- she's got such a machine," said John Catsimatidis, a New York businessman and longtime member of Clinton's finance team.

<snip>

A core group of about 20 people -- many of whom have been raising money for the Clintons since President Bill Clinton first ran in 1992 -- have been asked to try and raise $1 million apiece for Hillary Clinton's 2008 effort. A larger group will be asked to meet lesser but still-ambitious goals of $750,000 and $500,000 on down.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/07/clinton.fundraising.ap/

More on HRC's cash advantage here:

Clinton's $11 Million Advantage

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-elect/2007/feb/01/020104581.html





on edit: kant spel

[Zodiak]

1. If the person who had the most $$ always won the Presidency...

then we would have never had a Democratic President.

Only the media thinks that $$$ equals votes. That might be because in the board rooms, shares equal votes, but in the government, only votes equal votes. Don't buy into the media's corporate idea that our democracy is simply a game to get the most cash.

[Debi]

6. I think Kerry raised more money than * in the 2004 cycle n/t

[Zodiak]

8. No, not from what I recall

He raised more than Bush during certain periods of the cycle, but Bush had far more money in the campaign chest in total.

I could be wrong, but that is how I remember it.

[Debi]

10. Meh, four years ago and you're probably correct

That's probably what I heard referenced. :hi:

[Strawman]

2. No. The candidate with the most money doesn't always win

But you have to have enough to pay for a national campaign, buy TV ad spots, etc.

There's a certain threashold you have to cross in order to be competitive. It's unfortunate, but it is true.

[The Magistrate]

3. As The Saying Goes, Sir

"The contest goes not always to the strong, nor the race always to the swift, but that's the way to bet."

[azurnoir]

4. Occationly not

I pretty sure Clinton '92 did not have as many $$$$$$ as Bush1

[davidwparker]

5. No. It's doesn't matter how much she has; it's who is going to cast a

vote for her.

Unless Gore enters the race, I'm planning to cast my primary vote for Edwards.

[ShortnFiery]

7. No, she'll win the nomination and then the right wing will rip her to shreads. n/t

[AlGore-08.com]

9. Gore was massively outspent in 2000 - - by almost 2 to 1

So if money = votes every time, Gore should have lost to Smirk in a landslide. Instead, Gore won the popular vote by 1/2 million (and Florida by at least 1,000 votes, but that's another story).

Check out OpenSecrets.org, which has the financial info on recent past races.

[RiverStone]

13. Thats very good to hear...

Just the type of example I was seeking. Thanks AlGore -08 :) Of course, I hope your name matches reality in 08.

Appreciate the cool link as well.

[OHdem10]

11. This come from the practice of Media.

More than a few reputable journalists have said
at the beginning of campaigns they often only
cover the candidates who have the most money.

This is called the money race. It has been their
experience that in the end it is only the candidates
with money who have a chance in an election.

Just look at this race. Who has the Money, Hillary,Edwarads
and OBama. Who are covered?? Hillary and OBama and Edwards.
Who have the lead in the Polls? Same three.
Think of how many candidates on Dems Side, there are.
If they get no Media esp. TV Coverage, they cannot
reach the others in the polls.

The same is true on Republican Side. McCain, Guilliani
and Rommney have the most money. They are the 3 ahead
in polls. There are many Republicans running. Can you
name them.

The reason the Money Race is considered so important is
the Candidate must show they can pay for tons of Commercials.
This is the explanation, the Media gives.

[Blackhatjack]

12. At some point the massive amt of $ raised becomes more than you need...n/t