Comments 1 - 4 of 4 Search these comments
I don't think the media gets that publicizing the amount of money a candidate or his super PAC raised, isn't a badge of honor with the voters.
That used to impress when they Gruber Voter assumed that these Professional spokes persons were go do anything for them with that 20 or 100 million.
Now they know the more money they boast to have raised, then the opposite is true.
Yeah. The Media has long since moved to covering the Presidential Races from a "Procedure-based" view rather than an "Issues" view. "Oh, so and so has the endorsements, but doh-de-doh has raised more SuperPAC money..." It turns people off and actually helps people realize it's all bullshit donor classes arguing over who is going to serve the Elites better.
When it was supposed to distract people with a horse race and make it all about strategies and personalities, it now has the opposite effect.
I think it's more about forecasting--candidates with money and endorsements tend to perform much better than candidates without.
The Donor Class, also needs that information. They can find out who is polling best from common media forever.
But they want their MONEY to go where all the other money is going. Because in a chaotic environment, the only thing they know to do is assume Richie Rich wins.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/us/politics/rival-factions-of-top-donors-get-behind-marco-rubio-and-ted-cruz.html
Meanwhile, with the Koch Brothers:
Fiscal Restraint = Cut Taxes and Borrow. Free Market Priorities: Outsource your job.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/conservative-koch-brothers-political-network-stumped-trump-n508296
Stay tuned!