Aww , Oh my gosh.
I feel so ..... so bad you have to do this. I'm so sorry. I didn't know you had to spin that bad.
:(
jk-snark
I know you are joking, but I didn't have to spin. I believe that there is too much money in politics. I admitted that I thought Edwards did what he did because of how much he could raise, but I didn't care because of the fact that my progressive values include that I don't like the influence of donor money on who gets elected. How that can read as spinning for Edwards- well I don't see it. If Clinton or Obama today accepted the public based system- I would endorse their decision too without regard to their reasons because my values aren't based on who I am supporting.
You can forget Clinton/Obama going for public financing. Remember Edwards was on their side. Again, if this was all about "doing the right thing" I would be on board, because the right thing was in January. But to make this move, 3 days before the numbers of Q3, sorry suspect. And before anyone jump for joy, on all these candidates, let us see what the burn ratio is. Because the way the numbers are presented for JRE, that is TOTAL 12M in the bank, to get matching funds of 10M in January.
Edwards has always taken public financing. He took it during his 1998 run for the Senate in NC and his 2004 run for the POTUS.
Welcome to the team!
I don't believe or disbelieve what Edwards motivation may have been. You may still be right. My point above is that I let cynacism define the answer rather than waiting to see.
According to Bowers, edwards has spent only 23k on paid media in Iowa. The numbers above means he was on track for the 40 mil he wanted to raise this year regardless of taking public financing, and that he was gaining momentum with donors. 75 k donating this term for the first time is nothing to sneeze at.
The other line I agree with is that with 12 mil for the primary he didn't need to go with public funding. So the question becomes why did he choose it? I don't have the answer to that. It could be principle. It could have been something more cynical. The point is that where I made a mistake was to go on little information that was provided here, and assume that I knew for certain one way or the other.
Thank you for your post -- I think you are right, that the cynical view is the one that based on mistaken assumptions.
I think what is more important than the overall fundraising numbers is this part: "97 percent of contributions were in amounts of $250 or less."
That means that for Edwards, the public financing rules essentially double his money -- since contributions of up to $250 will be matched.
I doubt that this was a last minute decision, especially since the overall totals seem to be right on target in terms of what they are asking for. They have probably been watching and crunching the numbers for a long time.
If he had the same amount of money but a large portion coming from donations above the $250 mark, the math would come out differently. If Edwards has $1000 from small donors, that is doubled -- if the same $1000 came from a single donor... it stays the same.
Yes.. it is is likely to that he held back to see how the numbers were running before making a decision, so you can be cynical in that respect -- he didn't want to shut the doors on his options last February. But I think those who think it is a sudden decision based on financial shortages are simply naive -- I think the number crunching and the timing are probably based on a far more sophisticated analysis. It may be that the good news from the campaign perspective was seeing the 150,000 small donors. Perhaps the question all along was simply whether public financing would be feasible based on the matchability of the donor base.
(I know as a small contributor myself I feel much more motivated to give knowing that my paltry $20 will be turned into $40 for the primaries).
Public funds were probably being seriously considered ever since Edwards started going the small change for big change events. All those small donations can get matched, though it's a labor intensive process to go around the country to many small donor events he sure seems to have the energy for it and likes talking to regular people.
You can't answer this question?
He took the money, public funding, to compete beyond Feb 5th. That is why.
I don't care what anyone says. People DO look at numbers, money ones, when they roll. It shows the viability of the campaign. He need money to fight the first 4 states. What about Feb 5th? Does he have offices set up? Hired campaign managers for the state? Got folks set up to GOTV? You got to do this now.
He has a good strategy. Win IA and that is his jumpoff, but it depends on how the calendar will dictate. We still don't have solid dates yet.
I don't see, personally, anything after Iowa. You got to have organization out there, and he might have it, but if he does, put the links up of the 18 primaries on Feb 5th that he is organizing, right now.
Money stinks. But you need it, to win. And this is about getting your message out.
You seem certain about a lot of things. That's fine. I'm not. That should be fine too.
about taking public money is the spending limits that are set on each state. They are too low for Iowa and New Hampshire (though you can circumvent the limit in New Hampshire by buying Boston TV).
Edwards has plenty of money. More than enough to get him through South Carolin which is all that he needs.
He does need to get on TV in Iowa soon.
But now that it's clear he was on track, why, if it was about the money, would he act with such seeming urgency to make the switch before the quarter ended? Like you and bruh I thought it was about not meeting expectations (and like bruh I didn't care), but the numbers reported don't fit with that scenario.
I'm beginning to think that, besides it being a principled stand (I believe, whether the change was motivated by practicality or not, it was motivated too by principle), it was another dramatic move to differentiate himself from Hillary. So if I'm right, those of us who are cynical can still call it a political calculation -- but I'm beginning to see it as fitting in with his ongoing campaign.
betting that the American people can see beyond the money. He's decided to go all out. He's going straight to the heart of the problem...money in politics. He wants to prove to people that the America that believes in principle over principal still exists. He's trying to slay the MoneyMeansEverything dragon.
I know what he's doing. I hope it works.
This is one of the best youtube clips - rap by Bullworth - on money in politics I have ever seen.
I did not see the movie. This is what I think Edwards wants to end.
Bulworth breaks out RAPPING!!!
and also
Bulworth & Connie Interview
It is frightening how real this seems now.
glad you're back. i may not agree with you 100%, but i always look forward to what you write and think that you contribute a lot to the blogs.
i will not be posting here except infrequently when something really stands out to me. i have no interest in engaging peo here in their wilder arguments anymore.
i dont expect to post here that often
