Soccer Dad

Money for something

I noticed a few months ago the in recent elections, the candidates with the most money in the first quarter of the year before the elections. (i.e. 16 months before the nominations are set.) With the limited data that I had (3 elections) the most important factor was to be leading the fund raising. (For example 4 years ago the Democratic leaders were Lieberman and Hillary Clinton, but the top fund raisers were Kerry and Edwards.)

I assumed that this year the leading fund raisers at the end of the first quarter would be Hilary and Rudy. I was wrong it, was Hillary (by a hair) and Romney (by a mile.)

So a year in advance I'm nominating Hillary and Mitt to the nominees of their respective parties. (The fact that Barack Obama came so close to Hillary is a wild card, but in the absence of new compelling data, I'm prediction a Hillary/Barack ticket for the Democrats. Though I guess the 14 year rule would mean that it ought to be a Barack/Hillary ticket.)

Seeing that I believe that money is the main factor determining who will win the nomination for president, you probably would think that I believe that money should be more restricted. But that's not so. Money is essential to the modern campaign for president of course, but I believe that it's a symptom of what's right with the candidate rather than what enables a candidate to buy an election.

Arguably the two toughest jobs a candidate has to do are to get someone to vote for him and, even tougher, to give him the money to keep his campaign going.

In order to accomplish the latter a candidate has to create a program that will not just entice people to go out and vote for him, but to take out their wallets and contribute to him. The candidate that does this the earliest has prevented rivals from raising those, but more importantly she's likely locked up the most committed partisans who will be helping to recruit more supporters (and voters) to her camp.

In today's column, Two Years of Humble Pie, Charles Krauthammer identifies some of the strengths necessary to run a national campaign.

First, it tests a certain kind of competence. Managing a national campaign in a country of continental dimensions requires exceptional organizational skills. A fairly narrow competence, to be sure, but of major importance in a country where the president must run the behemoth that is the federal government.

The second function of the endless campaign is to build party consensus and democratic legitimacy, both of which contribute substantially to the astonishing stability and longevity of the American system. The presidential primary season is essentially a prolonged intraparty dialogue. It re-creates the Madisonian idea of factions and interests competing against each other, applied not to the legislature or the executive but to the electoral process that produces both. The job of the parties is to create a kind of pre-legislative consensus through the competition and conversation of the various factions -- ethnic, ideological, economic, geographic. The purpose of the endless presidential primary is to force the dialogue and, for all its haphazard meanderings and maddening trivialities, it does.

And the candidate that puts utilizes these skills the earliest builds up an organizational advantage over his opponents. The fundraising is one of the indicators that he's been successful building his support.

Fred Thompson? He's too far behind. But what about the internet buzz and all that? In the Fred Phenomenon, Don Surber thinks that it could be for real.

My purpose is not to promote his campaign, but rather to explain his appeal.

He is plain-spoken. His message is appealing. He has some authority. When he discusses the Libby case it comes from someone who helped get Richard Nixon out of the White House.

Fred is the second-string quarterback, standing in a clean uniform and holding the clipboard. All the fans like him because he has not fumbled or thrown an interception. Once he gets in the game, we’ll see. But I would not be surprised if 2 men are standing by summer’s end and one of them is Fred. The same decency a 19-year-old Democrat saw 34 summers ago, a 53-year-old Republican sees now.

I'm not denying that Thompson has substance. But being a late starter, he lacks the organization.

In 2004, Howard Dean was Fred Thompson to much of the media. Polls even showed him leading Kerry. But aside from the excitement over his internet campaign (and his, shall we call it, "frank" style) there was nothing there. Kerry won so handily in Iowa, I wonder if the media purposely flubbed their sampling to puff up Dean. Kerry didn't upset Dean, he did what was expected given his organizational advantage.

This year, Romney is starting to take the lead in some states. Giuliani isn't running in Iowa. Some people think this is a good tactical move. And it might be. But not for the reasons they think. Romney's going to win Iowa. A blow like that early for Giuliani would be devastating to his campaign. Giuliani figures he's better off losing when he's not running and marshalling his resources for another contest.

But that's not going to help. Romney's dollar advantage is too great.

Why should the money matter? Here's another idea. Money raised represent a polling sampling. The candidate who has raised the most has likely convinced the most people to part with their money to support her.

What we will see in the coming months is that Romney will continue to rise slowly but surely in the polls; gradually eroding Giuliani's lead. Thompson will come in and make a strong third place showing. And Sen. McCain will slowly but surely fade from the race. Most of Thompson's support will come at McCain's expense.

Election 2008, Mitt Romney, rudy giuliani, Fred Thompson.