Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Money Primary Faulty Analysis
The reaction to the Q1 money raising data in the presidential race seems to miss a point: money really matters. Where are the stats showing that 15 of the last 16 presidential candidates from both parties who raised the most money before the primaries ended up winning the nomination?
Sure, the exception is Howard Dean in 2004, but in my opinion that's because he got his money in a new disruptive way (the Internet) that caused forces (media, party leaders) to move against him because it was so unsettling. Even so, 15 out of 16 (all but Dean since 1976) is a fact worth talking about. But I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in the talk of money.
Oh sure, there were some candidates way back when who had the most money early on (Phil Gramm) and then didn't keep it up. So maybe Q1 isn't the best guide. But with more and more primaries moving to Feb. 5 in 2008, having money early will matter more than ever. It's a big problem with our political system. And it's one that seems to be systematically ignored. Anything that picks a winner 15 out of the last 16 times would get me interested.
Sure, the exception is Howard Dean in 2004, but in my opinion that's because he got his money in a new disruptive way (the Internet) that caused forces (media, party leaders) to move against him because it was so unsettling. Even so, 15 out of 16 (all but Dean since 1976) is a fact worth talking about. But I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in the talk of money.
Oh sure, there were some candidates way back when who had the most money early on (Phil Gramm) and then didn't keep it up. So maybe Q1 isn't the best guide. But with more and more primaries moving to Feb. 5 in 2008, having money early will matter more than ever. It's a big problem with our political system. And it's one that seems to be systematically ignored. Anything that picks a winner 15 out of the last 16 times would get me interested.
# posted by Pcentrist @ 11:28 PM 
