Ray Malone's Commentary

I am always surprised when the media makes a big case of those candidates that are able to raise large amounts of money. Phil Gramm who ran for President in 1996 was considered a leader by the media because he had raised a lot of money. However his miserable performance in the Iowa caucus caused him to with draw. Note that in 2004 it was Howard Dean who was the big fund raiser and media favorite until they counted the votes in Iowa.

The media inference has always been the same. Those that raise lots of money have lots of support from voters. But that is not true. It will not prove true in the 2008 election.

Let me do some calculations. Obama has raised some 300 million dollars in the primary elections. Would you say a man who had enough support to get 1.25 percent of the likely voters to give him an average of $200.00 each over 5 months was a very popular politician? Well that man would take in 300 million from those voters. But Obama had his share of bundlers and those giving the maximum amounts. I doubt if his total number of donors was 1.5 million people.

Do the donations of 1.2 percent of the voters say Obama can get 50.1 percent of voters to the polls to vote for him in the general election? Well it doesn't say he won't, but it doesn't say he will, either. It says that 1.5 million people care enough to give an average of 200 dollars each.

The evidence seems to say that a candidate with an appeal to only 10 or 15 percent of the voters will do better at raising money on the internet. I submit that a candidate that is out of the main stream, but still has the support of 10 or 15 percent of the voter will do better at collecting money on the internet than a candidate with majority support.. There tends to be competition for main stream voter support. There are in most years a number of candidate to chose from. Several candidates that share the majority views and are usually in the running. A voter that has main stream views has a lot less reason to give to a candidate than if a candidate that shares his views are few and far between. But when the rare candidate that shares those far out ideas shows up, the supporters of far out positions can't wait to help that candidate any way they can.

I would use Goldwater as an example. He had tons of volunteers, he had lots of money donated and his supporters were vocal and always out front. But the majority voters were quiet and uninvolved except when they went to the polls and voted for LBJ.

This year Obama is the new candidate with the rare and different appeal. "Can't we all just get together and get along!" was his appeal. That had to bring out the the "If we all just loved each" other crowd complete with billfolds. It brings out the cheering males, and fainting females. It brings out those who, for the first time, are proud of their country.

What about McCain. McCain is a former conservative turned centrist. He is right where every candidate wants to be on election say.. a centrist. A man who can take his half out of the center. Is that flashy? Is that rare? Does it bring emotional supporters out of the woodwork? Hardly.

But what does it bring. It brings the average guy and gal to the polls on election day. It brings those opposed to the political minorities on either side. It brings the rank and file working class Democrats who are not buying the leftist liberal positions on issues. It brings those who are scared of a cult like figure on the Democrat ticket. It brings out all who will not vote for a man named Barrack Hussein Obama.

Many times it has occurred to me that Democrats rarely win on any issue but the economy. However that was when their position on the economy was that of FDR, HST, and JFK. What was that position? Cut taxes and prime the pump is what used to be the Democrat cure for a down economy. That is not the Obama position.

Can you imagine a old time Democrat saying ... don't drill for oil. The caribou can't have good sex if you do. Can you imagine a JFK saying that? I can imagine a Jimmy Carter saying that. Can you imagine a worker in the steel or auto industries supporting that view? Can you imagine Americans saying we must stop driving our own cars. We must not air conditioning our homes, we must reduce our standard of living. It is not fair to the rest of the world. Well that is what Obama has said.

McCain is no dummy he will use Obama's own words to keep Obama from moving to the center. But some say, Obama will have a half billion dollars to spend refuting what McCain can say with only 85 million.

Here is how the real world works. If a candidate is saying what the voters want to hear, he only needs to say it a few times and not even all that loud. Telling the voters what they don't want to hear a 1,000 times each won't change their minds. And telling them what they WANT TO HEAR JUST ONCE IS OFTEN ENOUGH.

The media and the Democrats tried to take Reagan down by saying he was just another Goldwater. It did not work. They started it the minute he finished his speech for Goldwater at the 1964 convention. Why didn't it work? Reagan was not like Goldwater any more than McCain is like Bush.

The Democrats may very well try to paint McCain as Bush, but that will not work. Voters rarely know statistics or what positions politicians have taken in the past, But most will have an image that Bush and McCain didn't get along much over the last 8 years. They won't remember the specifics but they will have a feeling that Bush is McCain is a lie. Saying something that is not true to a person that knows it is not true is not a way to win that person's vote..

But my main point is being able to raise large sums of money on the internet is not a sign of being a main stream candidate. It is more a sign of being a small but vocal minority candidate.

My other point is money is only good for one thing. And that is to get the candidates message out to the voters. That can provide a candidate with a large organization, and a huge amount of money for advertising. But if the message is not what the voters want to hear, it will just tick them off.

The wrong message is counter productive. On the other hand the 85 million McCain will get with public financing is more than enough to get out his message... if that message is what the voters want to hear.

The important voters are who they nearly always are... the independent voters in the battleground states. If McCain can continue his appeal to independent voters, and get the votes of white working class Democrats, he will win the election.

The media believes that even though Hillary had huge negatives her wins in the big states were votes for her. Some were, but no where near all. Most of them were against OBAMA. It is the only explanation for Hillary winning state after state after there was no way for Hillary to win. Voters were trying to send the Democratic party a message. The message they got was lots of voters like Hillary. The message being sent was even Hillary would be better than Obama.