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
-
jlew24asu wrote: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.
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."When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul0 -
again ... if the country is set up to run as a corporation - this is the inevitable result ...0
-
jlew24asu wrote: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.0 -
soulsinging wrote: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.0 -
Our elections have become an absolute joke. It is all about money and popularity.
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.My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln0 -
jlew24asu wrote: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.
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.0 -
soulsinging wrote: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.
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?0 -
Why else would anyone give money to a campaign? Are you going to give money to someone who doesnt push for your interests?polaris wrote:gov't now is only interested in serving corporate interests ... whoever funds those campaigns are doing so in the interests of their business ...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help