Sometimes, fundraising advantages can be a trap
Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:51:44 PM PDT
Yes, I admit to sharing in a little giddy, selfish glee whenever I see another article comparing the Democratic and Republican candidate fundraising efforts. The fact that the top-tier on their side can barely compete with the mid-to-lower-tiers on our side is subjectively awesome. Conservatives are completely demoralized, and keeping their mouths and wallets largely shut. There's even a palpable sense not only of impending defeat, but of quiet shame, as if they've kinda granted that they f**ked up, and Democrats probably deserve to win this next one.
In other words, Bush has become the Ryugyong Hotel of the Republican Party. After so much arrogant build-up, he's now just an empty, embarassing shell, oppressively shadowing the very people he was elected to inspire. Some of my strongest conservative friends just kinda sigh and nod these days when Bush comes up in conversation, unwilling to fight to defend even the principles of the President they still fervently support. I feel kinda sorry for them. Almost. :)
But here's what worries me.
So what if the Democrats are raising tons and tons more money than the Republicans for their primary battles? Almost all of that money will be spent to win the nomination. It doesn't help much in a general election, and actually could hurt -- everyone's so excited to give money now, they'll have less to give when it really counts. Remember: it's unlikely a single penny you give to a candidate today will ever be used against a Republican. Ever. It will all be used against other Democrats. Now sure, if you tons of money lying around, spend away! But if you can realistically only afford a fixed amount for this whole election cycle, it's probably best to hold your ammo for the real enemy next year. Dollars matter.
I think we have objectively better candidates than they do, this time around (well, almost always, but this time it's obvious.) But we also each have one candidate that could draw significant support from the other side. For us, it's clearly Obama, who draws by far the highest percentage of Republican and Independent voters into his tent. For them, it's clearly Guiliani, who appeals to Independents and Democrats in a way the others don't. It's not quite as dramatic as Obama's inclusiveness, at least by the numbers, but it's still significant -- you must admit, just as I've heard a lot of Republicans say "ya know, I could vote for Obama," I've heard almost as many Democrats say "ya know, I could vote for Guiliani." I'm guessing (and this is a total, way-too-early, out-of-the-a** prediction) Guiliani beats NotObama, Obama beats NotGuiliani, and it'll be down to the wire between the two if they're both nominated and both have comparable fundraising, or Obama runs away with it if, as suspected, he has far superior fundraising. After all, if we nominate someone we can get excited about, they'll have a blank check. The Republicans simply don't have a single candidate that can inspire massive donations.
But we do have a candidate that can inspire massive Republican donations: Hillary Clinton. If Clinton is the nominee, all bets are off. I'm not saying she can't win -- she can -- but Republicans will spend every penny they have to try and defeat her. It won't matter if they have a lackluster candidate on their side -- it will be an Anybody But Clinton election for them. Don't believe me? Ask a Republican dad, uncle, employer, etc. They hate her with a fury rivaling anything I've seen on the anti-Bush crowd. It's actually remarkable (and somewhat nonsensical, considering she's not, and never has been, the far-left radical they claim her to be.) A Clinton nomination will finally give them something to rally around. And that makes me very, very nervous, especially if we've all given money during the primary for someone else, and then don't feel like given any more to our "second choice". Sure, if Hillary was running against Bush, our passion and wallets would still be on fire. But against people like Guiliani, McCain, even Romney? We might think they suck, but we don't hate them, not like we hate Bush, or they hate Hillary.
So, in a sheer dollars-to-dollars, fundraising-prismed way, our best bet is to nominate someone like Obama or Edwards or (pretty please) Gore, who we can rally around, be inspired by, and win with our heads held high. Ultimately, the case against a Clinton nomination isn't about her Iraq vote or occasional conservative pandering at all. It's, alas, about money. She simply raises too much money... for the other side. And by then, we'll have spent all our bucks on other primary candidates, more than twice as much as the Republicans have. Which means they'll have twice as much to spend against her in the general. And that's the trap.
Permalink | 6 comments