I'm not an I.T. pro, but it seems that there needs to be another type of measurement of a candidate's success as relates to this upcoming presidential election, instead of the media's beloved "fundraising gauge."
As we all know, Hilary is well out ahead of all other Dem candidates and while that does indicate a level of support, to me, it shows support by the corporatocracy (including, let's not forget, Rupert Murdoch, majority shareholder of NewsCorp, Fox, etc.)
To me, a fairer matrix of the level of support each candidate garners comes from the commitment of the candidate's volunteers.
Follow me below for more.
Howard Dean, though he did incredibly well in getting donations, made a huge impact in '04 also because of the level of commitment of his "Deaniacs".
I think there are many that will agree that public funding of elections is the way to go in the future. That's not going to happen anytime soon, but let's find a way to de-emphasize the money parameter and ramp up the commitment level parameter (or other parameters that others might suggest).
The media won't like it, because, after all, the media makes its bread and butter from campaign ads in election years, and OF COURSE, that money gauge is the one they rub their hands over, emphasize, and try to ramp up.
I'm asking if anyone else can come up with any workable, measurable gauge that is non-monetary to assess the candidates success level at this early stage.
Any takers?