Now this is just my own personal opinion, and I am by no means an expert in the area of politics, but is the fact that one party is able to bring in more cash than its opposition an accurate reflection of how well it’s able to get it's message out? Does one thing have anything to do with the other? I'm just not sure whether it's something that can be, or even should be, used as a gauge when one is trying to get a feel for where the country might stand, as a whole, on any issue. Especially a significant issue.
Now the only reason I bring it up is because, apparently, the RNC now has significantly more cash on hand than does their Democrat counterpart. It had $12.3 million in cash on hand and no debt at the end of July, while the DNC had $4.1 million in cash on hand and nearly $18.5 million in debt, which is an increase from the end of June. But can we make too much out of this? And do we have a tendency to rely too heavy on such numbers when trying to measure the success of our message?
The RNC reported raising about $5.9 million and spending $6.3 million last month, while the DNC raised $3.9 million and spent $5.4 million. The RNC has outraised its Democrat counterpart so far every month this year, and that would be despite the fact that Barry "Almighty's" has been pretty heavily involved in fundraising for the Democrat Party and campaign committees. So are we to take heart the fact that the Democrats are bringing less money in, or would that be reading too much into it?
While I suppose it all may serve a purpose as far as bragging rights might be concerned, and may even make for some good party propaganda, I find myself wondering if such news might actually have an adverse effect, at least to those on our side. Might it actually play a role in creating what could be a false impression that there are more people in favor of such things as, say, the passage an amnesty bill or ensuring that Obamacare gets funded, than may actually exist? Just askin.
And might it also be possible that those contributing the money may have an ulterior motive of trying to create some false impression that would then sway public opinion on certain key issues? Might there be hope that if enough money, coming not from those of us who have been the most vocal in voicing our opposition, but from those who make up what’s often referred to as being the party’s establishment, can be shown to be coming in, voter opinion could then be nudged more toward what is seen as the ‘proper’ position?
Those of us who live out here in the real world must not allow such information to cause us to start doubting ourselves when it comes to the positions that we hold on the truly important issues that this country now faces. We mustn’t allow ourselves to be treated like, somehow, it's us who are actually on the wrong side here. Or to consider the possibility that those giving all the money can’t be wrong, or why else would they be giving all that money. Many give money out of an attempt gain influence.
Personally, I stopped giving any money to the RNC sometime ago, deciding, instead, to focus on providing what money I can to specific candidates. And even then I took it in the shorts because I gave money, and cheerfully so, to Marco Rubio's campaign. That has since turned out to have been a complete waste of my hard earned money. I put very little stock in reports of which party is raising the most money, because I just don’t see how that translates into useful. I dunno, maybe I’m all wet.
No comments:
Post a Comment