MARC CHOQUETTE
Online Content Manager
Presidential candidates’ fundraising statistics from the third quarter are rolling in, and the Democrats have again beat out Republicans in the money race for 2008. But it is not the fact that they out raised the GOP, but it is how they did it that raises eyebrows.
Most who are well versed in the game of politics know that big business plays a big role in fundraising — it is where the big bucks and the influence reside. But the GOP, who has always been seen as more friendly to corporate America than Democrats, has lately experienced a donor defect never before seen, falling way behind in the money race.
Across the board, the Democrats, whose corporate donor list used to consist of little more than J. Crew and Ben and Jerry’s in 2000, are now rolling in dough. But it is not necessarily because of a jump in high-profile donations.
Take Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who led all candidates by raising more than $20 million this summer. Even in this age of big money, donors and corporate schmoozing, Obama continues to decline donations from corporations, lobbyists and political action committees. Instead, he has acquired much of his war chest from a diverse array of more than 350,000 small-time donors, many of whom donated amounts as little as $25.
Not only can such a large base create a steady stream of donations, but it can also garner a lot of votes in the process. These donors must be hiding well from the pollsters since, despite the grassroots effort, Obama continues to trail in almost every poll of the Democratic nominees taken since announcing his candidacy.
The person who continues to trump Obama in the ‘popularity meters’ is Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. How this is happening is beyond comprehension. The easy explanation is that her last name is creating a swell of baby boomer nostalgia for a return to 1995 and another Clinton dynasty.
But past front-runner failures in the early primaries have taught us that much of the hype is simply that: hype. Images of the 2004 race immediately come to mind, where Howard Dean all but had the nomination locked up … until a vote was actually taken and the country discovered Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was all of the sudden the right man for the job. And Kerry rode the early primary wins all the way to the party nomination.
Moral of the story: Do not trust the polls, and those not in the Clinton camp are taking that to heart.
In addition, the media continues to ignore how important winning the first few primaries has become, where we are bombarded with frontrunner syndrome. If states like Iowa and New Hampshire have such a reputation of deciding who the favorites will be for each party, why the media’s been continually focusing on the national polls and not on polls and canvassing results in Iowa or New Hampshire remains a mystery.
David Plouffe, campaign manager for Obama, made a great point about the candidate’s early approach in the 2008 race for the White House:
“So while the pundits focus on meaningless national polls, we are leading in the one state where the electorate is most focused on this election and where they are getting the most exposure to Barack,” said Plouffe in an e-mail to supporters.
With so much attention in this drawn-out race being paid to fundraising statistics and polls, it seems there is no longer any room in the newsrooms for gauging what really matters in these primary states: the impressions candidates are leaving on voters.
Which is why the left’s strategy of engaging the entire electorate over relying on the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans is working, and subsequently leaving the GOP in the dust, at least in the early stages. But since this type of “underground” campaigning tends to go unnoticed with regard to media attention, it will be interesting to see if this new method will translate into votes.
10-04-2007
