Political musing - Money Talks

I was surprised that Romney quit the race. Perhaps I shouldn't be. National and even statewide politics are based almost solely on money. Now that he disappointed in the Super Tuesday elections he will not get much money. The vast majority of money goes to front runners. He has already spend $40 million of his personal fortune. Like any good businessman he realizes it is foolish to throw good money after bad. So he quit in a timely fashion. He did not drag in out fruitlessly spending his and others' money. I would like to see him stay in to the convention but I certainly understand the reason he has bowed out. And I respect his decision. He still ought to get an early day convention speech. That would be a friendly thing for McCain's people to do. It would also help to show the party is unified.

Romney could be back in 2012. He likens himself to Reagan in 1976 (I think). In 1976 Reagan lost in a pretty close battle to Gerald Ford. Ford was an unelected incumbent. It's really not analogous. But heck it probably excited Romney's supporters.

On Super Tuesday Huckabee did much better than the national pundits thought he would. Romney came in third in a lot of states. Romney had a lot more money than Huckabee but it didn't translate into votes. Huckabee came in second to McCain. But for the most part this is only for bragging rights. Most Republican primaries were winner take all elections. So McCain got all the delegates. Huckabee can probably keep running his frugal campaign through the rest of the primaries. Ron Paul will continue also as a gadfly with an energetic grass roots following that is not all about winning. They perceive they have truth on their side and they wish to evangelize all who will listen.

I was thinking of voting for Romney but several weeks ago DW spoke of voting for Huckabee after she did some internet research. I think she has convinced me. I will probably still vote for Huckabee even with McCain the certain winner now. My BF is going to vote for McCain.

Next to that we read that Clinton is out of money. She has "loaned" herself money to run after her disappointing result in Super Tuesday. Obama is out-funding her. Two sidelights to this are that Clinton refuses to disclose her income and assets as completely as Obama has. The implication is that she and her husband have things they wish to hide. It is important because the rules say she can only donate half the value of her assets. The value of the Clintons' assets is not clear at all. Secondly most of her donors are fat cats who have already given the maximum of $2300. They can give an extra $2300 if she wins the primary to spend in the general election. She is encouraging them to give early. If she does not win she will have to give it all back. That's going to be a lot of money. It's like mortgaging the future. So she is pretty desperate. In contrast Obama gets a lot of smaller donations from often first time participants.

One has to think this shows a tendency to be a spendthrift and perhaps poor physical planning on Clinton's part. Would a Clinton presidency have the same tendencies?

Clinton still leads the delegate tally but because Obama has more money to spend he has a lot of momentum. It's like a sporting game where one team is in the lead but obviously tired as time is running out. Also, the image of a horse race is commonly used in regards to elections. We have one horse leading but another one charging as they approach the finish line.