The big news this week has been the race to raise money and once again Senator Obama has astounded political observers by substantially out raising Senator Clinton. Obama has certainly energized a large group of democratic voters. Never before have so many given so much money. Despite the enthusiasm Obama has not succeeded in moving beyond his current group of supporters. There have been three democratic debates and Clinton seems to have won each of the debates. She always seems to come across as more prepared, and more ready to be the President from the first day. On the other hand there is no taking away from the fact that the enthusiasm for Obama certainly amongst the large cadre of 250,000 donors is not waning. Edwards fundraising was down a little. Governor Richards everyone favorite dark horse seems to have gained a little traction and raised 7 million dollars, nothing like the 32 million that Obama raised, but then Richardson has a small staff and an operation that does not require the same level of cash. We tend to blame the cost of media for the high cost of running campaigns, but I wonder how much each candidate is paying their top advisors and consultants.
i strongly believe that the amount of money presidential candidates are spending to get votes is insane. the money spend for commercials and new conferences could be better spend, and could be used to get you votes as well. pretend a candidate spend 32 million like obama did into saving the environment. i belive that this would get tons of newscoverage and could get votes as well as help the environment. If you do something that millions of people will har about is much better spent than posters or postcards that are just through away as bulk by millions of american citizens
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I agree with you, that seems like a much better way to help the public and still be in the public eye gaining support. But if it was that simple, I'm sure that's the way it would be done. At least, it's encouraging to know that even though one candidate is spending more money, another is doing better politically because of their experience. Money doesn't beat all...not yet anyway.
I agree as well. I think that the need to spend endless amounts of money to gain votes is pretty ridiculous. Do you really need to stoop down that low to gain votes? I guess if you're that desperate you would ... but I do believe that the money spent on gaining votes could and should be used on better things that can benefit the citizens and the atmosphere.
It's a great idea, but for some reason i don't think it would work. He would still have to spend a lot of money to get the donation covered, and on top of that it is only a donation. If the results of the donation were suddenly visable to every one then it would work. However the time for the impact of the donation to take effect would be too long to make a huge impact on voters.
I agree, if they did something else with the money they can still gain about the same amount to publicity. Then it would benefit the public as well as the candidates. Both sides would be happy and the money wouldn't be wasted on pointless things like commercials and posters and advertisments etc.
Oh man I know! if you think about it, it would be incredibly impossible to be a president if you were middle or lower class. I think the government needs to put restrictions on campaign/election spending...
Seriously....there should be a limit on how much is spent advertising. A successful election can boil it down to who can spend the most money in a short amount of time
Yeah seriously! But then it makes me thinkk I mean the population gets bigger every year. In addition, I don't think it's all that great if a President buys a whole bunch of stickers, but when given to the people it's like, "One sticker for every two people, please."
They need a lot of money, because there's more people and every year there's an increase of new 18 year olds that need to be influenced with the campaign supplies!
Post a Comment