- comment
Vivian J. Paige - body
- The challenger has it far easier in this regard.
Don't you mean the incumbent?
- comment James Young
- body
- Raising money sucks! It's terrible! It's not hard asking acquaintances whom you know to be ideologically compatible which is so bad; it's asking your friends for money. And God bless those very few who, upon learning that you're running for office, simply dip into their wallets. They're few and far between, and frequently, the best of people.
- comment Alice
- body
- I'm with Vivian, surely the incumbent has an easier time.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- In terms of connections, perhaps the incumbent. But in terms of having the time and ability to pick up the phone and fundraise, definitely the challenger.
Naturally this is a double-edged sword -- while the incumbent can break up the monotony through obligations (work and otherwise), the challenger has nothing better to do but fundraise.
Hence the reason why Webb is complaining about having to fundraise -- as a challenger, he has nothing better to do. But it does mean one thing that should be encouraging to Democrats though; someone is sitting on him to make the calls and raise the $$$.
- comment James Atticus Bowden
- body
- NLS says politics is slanted to the old. Define old!
- comment Jason Kenney
- body
- My question is where's the surprise here? He knew going into this that money was going to be an issue, that Allen was going to be way ahead of him and that he was going to need to get a lot more if he hoped to challenge. Maybe the shock isn't so much the need as how hard it is to really squeeze that money out of folks. But to not know money was going to be a factor is odd and perhaps a sign of how great his campaign is being run and what kind of advisors he surrounds himself with.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Well, if fundraising is hard for a candidate, then they really shouldn't be running for public office IMO.
This is something candidates have just got to learn. You can't be shy about picking up the phone and asking fellow believers to rally 'round the standard.
Professional fundraisers can only help, but they can't take over the process in the end.
- comment Vivian J. Paige
- body
- Shaun - I have to disagree on the time of the challenger as opposed to the incumbent as well as the difficulty for the challenger to raise money.
First, the time. Challengers have more demands on their time just because they are (generally) not as well known. So they have to be everywhere and do everything - just to increase their name recognition. The other piece that a challenger has is the time learning the intracacies of the office to which they aspire. Learning the details of the issues, learning how the office actually works - these are things that the incumbent knows (usually) but the challenger really has no idea other than from briefing books.
The time spent fundraising is harder for a challenger because of the ties that the incumbent has. Challengers are raising money from people who are usually not as politically astute so they have to spend more time explaining to the person on the other end of the phone why they need the money.
No way IMHO that a challenger can possibly have an easier time - unless the incumbent is a total screw up. Or at least, that was my experience.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Let me back up just a little bit... I'm not saying the incumbent has a more difficult time fundraising. But what I am saying is that there are many more demands on an incumbent's time than there are on the challenger's time, and when it comes to the sheer practicality of fundraising the challenger simply has more time to do it.
Now whether or not that excess in time is more fruitful, that's another issue (and in the end you would be right, incumbents have the advantage there).
Still, in terms of time alone the challenger still has much more flexibility than the incumbent -- whether it is fundraising or anything else!
- comment Vivian J. Paige
- body
- I still don't know how you say that the challenger has more time. Perhaps my run last year was unique - 21 hour days were the norm and there was stuff that I could have been doing - other than sleeping - the other 3 hours. I doubt if my incumbent opponent put in hours like that.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- I know I certainly put in a lot of time running... ;)
11 Comments:
Don't you mean the incumbent?
Naturally this is a double-edged sword -- while the incumbent can break up the monotony through obligations (work and otherwise), the challenger has nothing better to do but fundraise.
Hence the reason why Webb is complaining about having to fundraise -- as a challenger, he has nothing better to do. But it does mean one thing that should be encouraging to Democrats though; someone is sitting on him to make the calls and raise the $$$.
This is something candidates have just got to learn. You can't be shy about picking up the phone and asking fellow believers to rally 'round the standard.
Professional fundraisers can only help, but they can't take over the process in the end.
First, the time. Challengers have more demands on their time just because they are (generally) not as well known. So they have to be everywhere and do everything - just to increase their name recognition. The other piece that a challenger has is the time learning the intracacies of the office to which they aspire. Learning the details of the issues, learning how the office actually works - these are things that the incumbent knows (usually) but the challenger really has no idea other than from briefing books.
The time spent fundraising is harder for a challenger because of the ties that the incumbent has. Challengers are raising money from people who are usually not as politically astute so they have to spend more time explaining to the person on the other end of the phone why they need the money.
No way IMHO that a challenger can possibly have an easier time - unless the incumbent is a total screw up. Or at least, that was my experience.
Now whether or not that excess in time is more fruitful, that's another issue (and in the end you would be right, incumbents have the advantage there).
Still, in terms of time alone the challenger still has much more flexibility than the incumbent -- whether it is fundraising or anything else!
Post a Comment
Home