![]() |
By Cameron Salisbury (about the author) Page 1 of 2 page(s)
For OpEdNews: Cameron Salisbury - Writer
The chosen candidates receive untold millions of dollars in free advertising as part of the press coverage surrounding the media stampede. Remember the breathless speculation before Hillary announced? The unrelenting media speculation before Obama announced? Anybody remember similar coverage for John Edwards? Joe Biden? Dennis Kucinich?
Poll results are fundamentally created by media hype and the media then dutifully report them in a self-fulfilling cycle that ends with the election between the two candidates that, too often, the media promoted best.
But history shows that that neither big poll numbers nor big money can guarantee a victory.
First, the money.
According to OpenSecrets.org (www.opensecrets.org/] the candidate who spends the most wins about 85% of the time giving big money a solid grade of 'B' for deciding elections. Better than average but not a sure thing.
That leaves a stunned 15% of big spenders who lose to rivals who spend less. In recent elections that has included Senator George Allen (R, Va) who outspent his Democratic challenger, Jim Webb, by 2 to 1; John Ashcroft (R, Mo) who was unceremoniously booted from his senate seat before taking office as Bush 43's attorney general; House minority leader Tom Daschle (D, ND); and the highly regarded triple amputee Senator Max Cleland (D, Ga). Painfully, the list includes Ned Lamont who outspent Joe Lieberman in the race for the Connecticut senate seat.
The donor base tells the true story of a candidate's appeal and is rarely mentioned by the press.
Senator Clinton's contributors come mainly from New York and, secondarily, from the Washington, D.C area. Her largest contributing zip code outside of the east coast is in toney Beverly Hills, California.
In contrast, one of John Edwards major donor zip codes is in Montgomery, Alabama.
Compared to either Obama or Edwards, Clinton's private donors are heavily skewed towards the big money side. Nearly three-quarters of her funding comes from donors contributing more than $2300. Almost 50% comes from contributions of $4600, roughly twice the percent of high donors as Edwards and Obama combined, and far more than any of her Republican challengers. A measly 9% of her funding comes from contributions of less than $200, compared to 22% for Obama.
Based on campaign contributions alone, Hillary's support is geographically relatively limited. That support, however, comes from deep pockets. Obama and Edwards have wider support from people of more limited means. John Edwards' campaign is especially notable. He gets 100% of his funding from individual contributors, not PACs and not corporations.
And then there are the polls.
Remember Howard Dean in 2004, predicted by polls as the sure winner in the Iowa caucuses? The media did its usual post mortem search for an esoteric, creative justification for his sudden fall, but the one that resonated was given by several caucus participants interviewed after his loss: They didn't think he could win a general election.
If the perceived ability to win a national election is a major criterion for primary voters, Hillary may be in trouble. Poll after poll has shown that her negatives among all voters swamp her positive support. How does someone win an election with nearly 50% of the voting population adamant about supporting anyone but her?
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
| 12 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |