This is part 2 of a three part series on the Republican contest for President.. See http://www.swingstateproject.com/...
Reposted @ http://infinitefunction.wordpress.com/...
Part 1: The Money Game
The early stages of a presidential race is about one thing. Money. The media in the past has aptly named this period the “money primary.” In 1992 Bill Clinton cleaned up during the “money primary” as did George W Bush for the Republicans in 2000. Of course the top fundraising candidates don't always win. Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani had far better early fundraising operations than John McCain. But John McCain at least placed in the “money primary” in sharp contrast to Mike Huckabee who didn't.
In the end if you look at the top fundraisers going into the nominating season you'll more often than not find your nominee. Look at the top three and you'd be hard pressed to argue the nominee won't be one of them. That is not to say an exception such as say Jimmy Carter in 1976 can't occasionally break through. But fortune favors the rich.
The question this year is how much the fundraising game has changed. First you have the increasing prominence of internet fund raising that helped drive the Obama campaign four years ago and the Howard Dean campaign eight years ago. On the Republican side four years ago Ron Paul was adept at raising funds this way.
Second you have the Citizens United decision by the United States Supreme Court. The conventional wisdom is that the big boys who splashed a lot of water in the 2010 election such as Crossroads GPS, Americans for Prosperity, and the Tea Party Express will keep their powder dry and just be content with having all the candidates grovel before them in the primary. If this isn't the case then all bets are off.
A theoretical battle between say a Tea Party Express backed Michele Bachmann, a Crossroads GPS backed Mitt Romney, a Chamber of Commerce backed Mitch Daniels, and a Focus on the Family backed Mike Huckabee would make personal candidate fundraising of far less importance as corporations, millionaires, and billionaires take the drivers seat. However such a scenario is highly unlikely as most of those groups do coordinate at some level and have their eyes on the ultimate prize especially with all the candidates when all is said and done mouthing the same language and taking similar positions. That is not to say the people behind these groups will sit out. But that it just makes more sense for them to make conventional donations for mere tens of thousands rather than pouring multiple millions into what is just the opening act of the ultimate contest.
Third you have the increased ability to fundraise perhaps undermining the restraint built into the current public financing system of matching funds. In order to receive generous matching funds from the government candidates agree to certain spending limits. Candidates then often spend heavily in the early states such as New Hampshire and Iowa and are broke and often facing spending limits as they enter the later states. This provides a boost to the frontrunner and an incentive to the major candidates who are not just in it for the attention (such as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich) to get out early. In 2008 Democrats Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton bypassed matching funds allowing Hillary Clinton to be competitive across the primary calendar long after the outcome was certain. That was not the case on the Republican side. Sure the winner take all system gave McCain a large delegate lead. But the other candidates really did not have the resources to compete even if they wanted to.
That said money versus momentum can sometimes be a chicken and egg argument. For example did Barack Obama raise money in 2008 because he excited the electorate or was he able to excite the electorate because he effectively spent the tremendous amount of money he raised? The goal of any candidate is of course to jump start this process. Howard Dean in 2004 generated some excitement with his opposition to the Gulf War and managed to raise the funds to become a contender before his campaign collapsed. More dramatically Jimmy Carter was unknown and underfunded in 1976 before winning the Iowa primary.
Past Republican nominations do present a cautionary note to the Herman Cains and Michele Bachmanns who hope to come out of nowhere and raise the necessary funds with a win in Iowa. Mike Huckabee in 2008 won Iowa and won considerable notice and momentum. Ultimately his inability to raise funds kneecapped him. Pat Robertson's second place showing in Iowa gave him momentum that he couldn't translate in part because he didn't have the resources of the other candidates. Failure to compete in the pre-election “money primary” and the corresponding building of organizational strength can handicap you even if you do pull of a victory in one of the early states.
Traditionally the way Republicans (and even Democrats) “jump start” this process is in courting wealthy fundraisers who not only donate money to the campaign but can raise large amounts of money from wealthy friends and associated. You may be familiar with the term “Bush Pioneer.” Those were fundraisers who were able to solicit $100,000 in donations to the Bush Campaign with different titles for those gathering even more “bundled” campaign dollars.
These large fundraisers such as Bob Perry are currently falling heavily into three camps. Mitt Romney who did better at courting this group than any other candidate in 2008. But more surprisingly Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman. Which is why while in the end all three of them may end up losing, perhaps even outfundraised, these three will at this early stage be assumed to be three of the four top contenders.
Read More