2008 - Candidate with the most money wins.
jlew24asu
Posts: 10,118
I dont know much about this guy but he's right. is it just the nature of the beast? there are probably other people in similar situations throughout elections from years back; the person who is best for the job (not necessarily this guy, I dont know him) simply cant keep up the fund raising.
DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack said Friday he is pulling out of the 2008 Democratic race for president, citing financial difficulties in a campaign that lasted 15 weeks.
Vilsack, 56, said he would have continued if it weren't for the large amounts of money he would need for a a campaign.
"The reality, however, is that this process has become to a great extent about money, a lot of money," he said. "And it is clear to me that we would not be able to continue to raise money in the amounts necessary to sustain, not just a campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, but a campaign across this country.
"It is money -- and only money -- the reason we are leaving today."
With his wife, Christie, by his side, Vilsack thanked his family, friends and financial supporters.
The two-term governor also praised his staff.
"It's an organization I'm convinced would have been sufficient to have won the Iowa caucuses if we were to continue."
He added, "They believed in me, and they believed in the ideas that we were going to put forward."
Vilsack formally announced his presidential candidacy in November; his gubernatorial term ended in January.
Between November 9 and the end of the year, Vilsack had raised $1.17 million.
A move or possible move by "media-expensive states" to have their primaries or caucuses in early February 2008 wouldn't help Vilsack's financial dilemma, according to a statement from his campaign office.
Among those states are California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan and Missouri.
Vilsack was considered a long shot for gaining the Democratic Party's nomination. He faced stiff competition, notably from Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.....
continued...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/23/vilsack.2008/index.html
DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack said Friday he is pulling out of the 2008 Democratic race for president, citing financial difficulties in a campaign that lasted 15 weeks.
Vilsack, 56, said he would have continued if it weren't for the large amounts of money he would need for a a campaign.
"The reality, however, is that this process has become to a great extent about money, a lot of money," he said. "And it is clear to me that we would not be able to continue to raise money in the amounts necessary to sustain, not just a campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, but a campaign across this country.
"It is money -- and only money -- the reason we are leaving today."
With his wife, Christie, by his side, Vilsack thanked his family, friends and financial supporters.
The two-term governor also praised his staff.
"It's an organization I'm convinced would have been sufficient to have won the Iowa caucuses if we were to continue."
He added, "They believed in me, and they believed in the ideas that we were going to put forward."
Vilsack formally announced his presidential candidacy in November; his gubernatorial term ended in January.
Between November 9 and the end of the year, Vilsack had raised $1.17 million.
A move or possible move by "media-expensive states" to have their primaries or caucuses in early February 2008 wouldn't help Vilsack's financial dilemma, according to a statement from his campaign office.
Among those states are California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan and Missouri.
Vilsack was considered a long shot for gaining the Democratic Party's nomination. He faced stiff competition, notably from Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.....
continued...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/23/vilsack.2008/index.html
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
How sad is it that this is the case. It's always the candidate with the deepest pockets and that it why we are always stuck electing the lesser of two evils.
raising donations and running a successful corporation are not related at all.
the entire process is very similar. first find a product that will sell to the public (your stances on issues as determined by polling), then you line up investors for the capital to get off the ground (fundraising), then you market your product (campaign ads and stump speeches), and hope people buy it (vote for you).
running for any national office is essentially the same process as starting a successful company. quality of product has less to do with your success than your ability to market it.
ok. but most of these candidates on say the left is selling alot of the same thing. (as is the right)
its the media who really controls who gets the most face time, which I guess it what pisses me off more about this process.
I heard an interview with Rahm Emanuel about running in '08, and he estimated from now until the election, 85-90% of a candidate's day is scheduled around fund-raising - either fund-raising appearance, phone calls to donors and potential donors, and meetings about fund raising. The current elected officials that are running in '08, are spending the vast majority of their time that we pay for, trying to get another job.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
gov't now is only interested in serving corporate interests ... whoever funds those campaigns are doing so in the interests of their business ...
yea yea yea I know this argument is so old and tiresome.
of course they end up selling the same thing. they've both got core constitutents, so you win the election in the middle with identical policies. the right knows evangelicals will vote for them, the left knows minorities will vote for them. they give a token gesture to the die hards, then spend a lot of money trying to sway the middle of the country with identical policies. it's why negative campaigning works so well. it's impossible to get the general public to appreciate the subtle practical differences in your policies in 30 second soundbites that the media wont cover anyway. but if you can scare voters into thinking your opponent will rape your daughters and steal your jobs, those 30 seconds will get their attention and the media will cover it becos sensationalism makes for better ratings.
lemme guess ... you'd like to believe that george w. bush became president because he was the most qualified? ...
what does this have to do with "us government only plays into corporate interests?"
its about how someone becomes president of the united states ... one gets their on the back of corporate interests and once there serve those corporate interests ...
corporations dont elect presidents. people do.
Much agreed. Why can't we cap the ammount of money a candidate can raise? Wouldn't that equal the playing field a bit, and let the product stand out more than the marketing?
isnt this simliar to what mccain is trying to do with campaign finance reform?
I'm not really sure. I know McCain was pushing for some kind of reform but I don't know any specifics.
um no it doesnt. you still can do what matters most. VOTE
The process is a little backwards as it is stated here.
No.
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/022107/obama2.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070222fec,1,5009472.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
and then I hear DJ - Dennis Johnson - the mighty # 3 of the greatest team to ever play the game of basketball - the mid 80's Boston Celtics, dies of a sudden heart attack, before he can make the Hall of Fame.
not a good end to the week.
from the February 26, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0226/p01s01-uspo.html
Before any votes, a 'money primary'
The race to raise funds, hire top staff, and generate media buzz for the 2008 presidential election is already well under way.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON
It was "money, and only money," that led former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack to drop out of the 2008 presidential race last Friday. What the Democrat meant, of course, was a lack of money. Not hard work or desire.
Politicians often speak of fundraising with disdain, but in fact, the money that donors are willing to shell out to candidates represents an important signal of a candidate's viability. Even if much of the public is not fully engaged in the intense nomination races under way in both parties, wealthy donors are. And they're voting with their checkbooks.
It's all part of what's come to be known as the "invisible primary" – the early jockeying for money, top campaign staff, and high-profile endorsements that winnow the presidential field long before any caucuses or primaries are held. A fourth piece, media buzz, magnifies the effect of the other three.
"Organization, fundraising, and endorsements are all various forms of currency, or various bets on the probability that a candidate will finish first or in the [top three]" in the early nominating contests, says Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. "No one wants to endorse a candidate they know will have to drop out early or won't be able to raise money or convince a top-drawer management team to take on their campaign."
Mr. Vilsack knew going in that he faced an uphill climb. Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois were likely to run, and a third likely candidate, former vice presidential nominee John Edwards, had already built up a strong organization in Iowa, which will hold the first nominating contest next January. All three ended up declaring, and currently occupy the top three spots in most polls of Democratic primary voters.
For Vilsack, one big trouble sign came in polls of his home state, where he typically polled fourth among Democratic presidential wannabes. Though he was a popular two-term governor, with a centrist approach, he never was able to carve out a national image among his own people, and, lacking the charisma of an Obama or an Edwards, could not attract much attention (or money or media or endorsements) outside Iowa. In the Iowa caucuses, he had to finish well if not first to keep going. But as the hometown candidate, the moment he did well, the import of the Iowa caucuses would have been discounted. So in effect, he was in a no-win situation.
One beneficiary of Vilsack's decision could be Gov. Bill Richardson (D) of New Mexico, the only other candidate with executive experience in the race. Governor Richardson also brings Washington experience – as a former congressman and Energy secretary – as well as foreign policy credentials, as a former UN ambassador and still part-time globetrotter and hostage negotiator, to the table.
But Richardson is another candidate who could face viability problems soon if he does not show some chops in the fundraising department. As the sitting governor of a state far from the key money centers, Los Angeles and New York, it will be hard for him to raise the kind of serious money he needs. Still, he's already well ahead of where Vilsack was when he pulled out. Last week, Richardson raised $2 million in a single fundraiser. Vilsack had raised just $1.1 million in the last seven weeks of 2006, and had spent most of it by the end of the year.
In this presidential cycle, money is more important than ever – especially since some top candidates have signaled they will forgo the public financing system and raise as much as they can on their own. Campaign-finance experts say that, to remain viable, a candidate needs to raise upwards of $20 million by June. Some top-tier candidates, like Clinton, can expect to do far better than that.
The Richardson and Obama candidacies have opened up mini invisible primaries within the larger one, one in the Hispanic community and the other among African-Americans. The challenge for both men is to compete against the Clinton machine, which has strong connections to both communities owing to the presidency of Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton, and his continuing popularity among both groups. (Richardson is Hispanic and Obama is black.)
The campaign of Hillary Clinton, which has worked all along to create an air of inevitability around her candidacy, has reached out to key players in both worlds and locked in talent and donors. For both Richardson and Obama, the ethnic/racial dimension has presented a challenge: Neither says he is running as the "Hispanic candidate" or the "African-American candidate," but those are natural ties that can produce important endorsements and donations.
And even as the overall Democratic field has shrunk, it may not be done growing either. Speculation persists that former Vice President Al Gore may yet jump into the race – one of the few people who could still do that and mount a viable candidacy, given his national fame and fundraising ability.
In a Pew Research Center poll released last Friday, most Democratic voters (77 percent) reported that they have not given the presidential campaign much thought and were not prepared to state which candidate they would support. Among those who were willing to name a candidate, Clinton came in first with 11 percent, Obama got 7 percent, Edwards got 1 percent, Gore got 1 percent, and 4 percent went to others.
Given that the invisible primary is taking place largely unnoticed by most Americans may strike some as undemocratic. In effect, the choices that voters will face early next year in the nominating contests are being shaped right now, before most people are paying attention. But the system has run this way for a long time. It was the influential GOP donors and governors who hand-picked then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush to run for president back in 1999. Ronald Reagan was tapped to run for president in similar fashion.
Still, the early importance of big money in the 2008 presidential cycle is unprecedented. "This may well be a very important year in that process, in the sense of more and more money being required to run," says Mr. Jillson.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Just like the Evil Empire known as the New York Yankees....$$$ talks