Ana Marie Cox writes:
Romney raised [$23 million] while trailing the frontrunners in single digits, which is just a reminder of just how different the pools are for "people polled by surveys" versus "people who give to candidates." I imagine we'll see them converge now, or at least media coverage will.
I'm unconvinced. Phil Gramm raised quite a bit of money in 1996, but he never broke out. Even so, there's no doubt that a rich candidate has a shot at prominence a poor candidate can't match. And isn't that...weird? For some reason, it's become common in Democratic circles to laud the compression of the primaries and the reentry of such large media markets as California and Florida because it'll supposedly test the really important skills, like fundraising and media management.
But there's no reason to believe fundraising is terribly indicative of positive traits, or that those who show early fundraising ability are more in possession of such abilities than those who don't. Fundraising tests prominence (Giuliani), aura of inevitability (Hillary Clinton), appeal to the business community (Mitt Romney), affinity with rich interest groups (John Edwards 2004), and so forth. When Dean exploded onto the scene, suddenly he became a masterful fundraiser. If Bill Richardson became prominent tomorrow, he'd prove himself a helluva fundraiser.
Money follows momentum, and when it doesn't, it's often following more problematic traits, like promises, or policies that the monied think will be a really good investment. I know Markos and others think the netroots can offer a third way forward, and maybe campaign finance reforms that multiply the power of small sum donations can make that vision manifest, but until then, I find the spiraling need for campaign funds -- particularly early campaign funds -- worrying.