Lets talk a bit more about Edwards' money problem

[Joe the Revelator]

Save me the "You shouldn't have to buy an Election" comments. It's a noble thought, but not realistic in the slightest. Like it or not, it does take money to win an election. Unless Huckabee is the republican nominee, then the Republicans are going to be spending money, and we're going to need to as well to take back the White House.

With that said, what pisses me off the most about John Edwards is his selfishness. He mortgaged the GE in order to compete in Iowa. What makes this even sadder is that he could have funded his Iowa campaign with his own money in order to have the chance of winning, and then raising unlimited funds for both the rest of the primaries and the GE.

Why is the fact that he won't even have the money to support a staff between Feb. 5th and the convention being ignored by both the media and his supporters. What do we gain by possibly nominating someone who can't afford to win?

[K Gardner]

1. Let's not and just say we did. n/t

[Joe the Revelator]

5. Why? Its a very valid concern.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. It does take money, and Obama had MUCH MUCH more money than he did.

Why is it evil to mention that? Or is it maybe illegal?

Lastly, if I wanted someone with lots of money, I'd vote for Romney. The a-hole has money to wipe his big fat butt with. Yours is a rather ridiculous argument, don't you think?

[Joe the Revelator]

6. I don't get a single point in your post

and I'm not trying to be a smart ass. Can you rephrase it, I'd like to respond.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. Okay.....

You said that if it takes money to run, then we should consider it the mark of a real winner, someone that can gather lots of funds.

Right?

[Joe the Revelator]

16. Not the mark of a winner as much as it is the mark of someone who...

doesn't start the race with his arms tied behind his back. Money can make someone competitive, not a winner.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. Well, I think that's bullshit.

If you think that gathering the most funds makes for a good candidate, I think you have a twisted sense of who would make a good president.

And *that* is my point.

[Joe the Revelator]

19. Then you're denying the realities of the campaign

Everything a candidate does, from TV ads, to putting together a ground organization, to paying staff, to affording to be able to travel from state to state require money.

Do you think that the republican nominee is going to give Edwards a pass on the months that he can't afford to build a GOTV movement, or put up TV and radio ads, so that its fair? Of course not, their nominee is going to have money, and they are going to hammer a helpless John Edwards for six months.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

23. No. I'm merely denying your assertion that gathering more funds has great value

It doesn't. It merely means the person is a great salesman, and salesmen are connivers. If anything, the ability to gather more funds is a sign that the person is a master manipulator.

[Joe the Revelator]

29. It comes down to a simple question: Can a person with no money

be competitive?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

30. No, it doesn't come down to that. You pulled that one out of... well, who knows where LOL!! nt

[Joe the Revelator]

32. It exactly what we're talking about.

[laureloak]

8. Obama outspent Edwards 6 to 1 but didn't beat him 6 to1.

[Joe the Revelator]

10. Money doesn't buy votes in a pattern, thats true

But if Edwards has to black out his campaign and organization from February until August, then he doesn't have much hope of being a legitimate candidate and getting ANY votes.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. True. It would be interesting if numbers worked that way LOL!

Can you imagine a formula like that?

You spent 2 to 1, and you get exactly 2 to 1 votes; you spend 6 to 1 and you get exactly 6 to 1 votes.

The planet would be quite odd.

[bluerum]

3. I donated this morning before I left for work.

[Joe the Revelator]

4. All the donations in the world won't help. He's capped because he took matching funds

There is a certain amount of money he can spend from now until August and he's alreayd ran through half of it.

[Tennessee Gal]

9. Not true. Check here .............................

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/146/

[Joe the Revelator]

14. Relying on 527's and other orgs that can't coordinate with the campaign is not a sound strategy

It also doesn't come close to explaining how he would be able to fund a nationwide ground organization.

[texastoast]

7. Silly rabbit. You don't know lawyers.

You ain't seen nothin' yet.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[laureloak]

12. Edwards isn't upset over it, so you just settle down and

don't meddle where you don't belong.

PS I just really read your post and I've got to say, You're full of shit.

[Joe the Revelator]

15. How am I full of shit?

and of course Edwards isn't upset, he's being selfish and short sited.

and how do I not belong?

[laureloak]

22. All manufactured garbage. You aren't JRE's treasurer so

stop worrying so.

[Joe the Revelator]

24. In a few weeks JRE isn't going to be able to afford a treasurer

It's a valid concern.

[ellisonz]

18. "don't meddle where you don't belong."

:spray:

In denial much?

[Joe the Revelator]

20. What was she even implying?

[ellisonz]

37. That John "Hedge Fund" Edwards is above criticism.

:spank:

[izzie]

21. what we need to do for all is give the public their free air time

This buying time on the public owned and leased out stations is for the birds. We should demand our free time that goes with the renting of the air wave system. This is set up so some of the millions can stick to some fingers as it passes through the mill plus they can control some of what is said. We need to get our Congress to stick to the deal that we get that free time.

[Joe the Revelator]

26. Noble thought, but its not going to happen in time for this campaign

nt

[izzie]

44. well does any change happen fast in this form of govt?

If some thing started to happen I would be happy. One really does not want a Von Bismark in the WH. Look at what Bush has done by putting his type people into every agency plus not doing the laws on the books but only what he wants done. He has made some changes that by law we took years to get into some of these dept. He made his power even more important than most Presidents by this under handed and I am not sure legit way he has done things. Some of that falls in the FCC as I am sure that free time is to be out there but we just do not see it. I think that who ever runs that dept. has never pushed the free part of the law. Bushs man being about the same as every other President's man in this dept. Where is Congress or DOJ? If there is a law that we can have free time where is it and why is not the law done for us and not for the WH or Congress? One step would be to just get the law out in front of the people and do as it is, not as these 'rulers' wish. One never hears this come up when any one runs for office. Or I never do.

[Madam Mossfern]

27. If anything

This illustrates the dire need for drastic campaign finance reform.

[kelligesq]

33. Absolutely right. And its obscene that they spend 200 million on

a campaign...how many people would that feed? how many houses would it build in
New Orleans.

It's disgusting. An Abraham Lincoln coud never run or win the presidencey today.
And maybe that's part of what Edwards is showing. The obscenity of the corporations and lobbvyists giving huge amounts of money to put candidates in their debt !

[K Gardner]

25. Now, just look how many of you stepped into the "I'm concerned about John's $$"

bait and switch trap !!! LOL. Wolsh, try not to lose any sleep over it. JE and his supporters aren't :-)

[Joe the Revelator]

28. There is no bait and switch. This is a valid concern. You can try to sweep it under the rug

But it needs to be addressed until there is a clear plan of action.

[JDPriestly]

31. Hillary spent 6 million on ads. Edwards spent less than 3 million on ads.

Edwards doesn't need as much money as Hillary. Edwards has a message that Americans want to hear. Hillary does not.

[Milo_Bloom]

34. How about his electability problem?

If he couldn't win in Iowa after coming in second in 2004... being on a national ticket... spending the last 4 years basically living there, the guy is NOT electable by any sense of the word.

[Joe the Revelator]

35. I think they go hand in hand. nt

[4nic8em]

36. Regarding campaign money

Mitt Romney spent 30 million dollars in Iowa and it didn't do shit for him...

[ellisonz]

38. Yes, but that's not what we're talking about here.

We're talking about how you get capped out in March and then don't get a new spending period until September. During that period of time you have to build some sort of organization and that takes staffers, offices, events, and advertising. Money isn't everything, but it's something.

[4nic8em]

39. My point is that

although money is important...it will ultimately be a candidates specific message that will prevail, not money. (Mitt as an example)

[FrenchieCat]

40. Yes....Kerry spent 251 million to the 51 million cap that Edwards would have

we'll know even sooner who the nominee will be, and from that time till August 29th, Edwards will be roadkill.

Kerry's 251 million didn't save him, how in the world to do you think 1/2 of 51 mil is gonna save Edwards. Even if he was that good, he ain't superman or Jesus, and he would need to be them both.

[4nic8em]

41. I understand that

the "cap" for Edwards funding is not a good thing...I think that this is an Edwards strategy (as spoken by him) to distance himself from the "lobbying and corporate" influence in his campaign as a point to separate himself from Hillary and Obama. Just my opinion.

[FrenchieCat]

42. It is a losing strategy.....

As trippi famously said....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3919949

[4nic8em]

43. Indeed...

As you mentioned earlier, our party's 250 million "money strategy" in 2004 was a real winner. It gave us GWB...again, not because of money but message. I thought this election was supposed to be about "change". I must be an idealist.