.
Why do people give money to candidates who have no chance of winning?
January 5th, 2012
04:00 PM ET

Why do people give money to candidates who have no chance of winning?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

If you go to the race track, do you bet your money on a three-legged horse? No – you bet your money on a four-legged horse that has a chance of winning the race.

So why is it when it comes to politics some people insist on betting on horses that have no chance of winning?

Several of the Republican presidential wannabes are raking in loads of campaign cash despite the fact that they have virtually no chance of being the nominee.

Rick Santorum, who came close to defeating Mitt Romney in Iowa, has raised more than $1 million since the caucuses Tuesday.

Yes, Santorum placed a very close second in Iowa, but that was largely due to his appeal among social conservatives and evangelicals. And that's not something that will translate in many of the upcoming races. He stands to lose badly in New Hampshire.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul raised an impressive $13 million in the last three months. That tops the $8 million he raised in the previous quarter. Paul has a passionate group of supporters. He, too, ran well in Iowa, but again, chances are he won't be the Republican nominee.

Newt Gingrich also raised $10 million in the last quarter, but some of that came when he was spiking in the polls. And that is now history.

Of course, none of these compare to Romney's expected haul of $20 million in the last three months.

But that's the thing, you can understand why people might plunk their money down on Romney to win.

Romney is looking more and more like the party's nominee every day. He is expected to win by a landslide in New Hampshire, and it seems unlikely at this point that there is anyone – or anything – that can stop him.

Here’s my question to you: Why do people give money to candidates who have no chance of winning?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST

Posted by
Filed under: 2012 Election • Election Funding • Elections • Money
October 27th, 2010
05:00 PM ET

Do you have faith that elections are honest?

ALT TEXT

(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

We should all know the drill by now:

If it's election time, then it's time for accusations of fraud and voting irregularities. And, with six days yet to go until the midterms, we cite the following:

In Nevada, there are reports in some counties that voting machines are automatically checking Harry Reid's name on the ballot.

It's worth pointing out that the voting machine technicians in one of these counties are members of the Service Employees International Union - a group that's planning to give tens of millions of dollars in this election, most of it to Democrats. Harry Reid is a democrat.

  • In North Carolina - a voter says he tried to vote a straight Republican ticket… but his choices showed up as Democrat. Four times.
  • In Illinois, it's the first election where any registered voter can cast their ballot by mail. But one official says that as many as hundreds of thousands of voters who are planning to get a ballot in the mail could be disenfranchised.
  • Also in Illinois, 36 counties missed the deadline to send ballots overseas - to members of the military and other voters.
  • In Pennsylvania, some residents along with a county Republican committee claim a Democratic congressman is trying to flood the voter registration office with fraudulent applications for absentee ballots.
  • And then there's Florida, without which no election drama would be complete. The Daytona Beach city commissioner and his campaign manager were just arrested and charged with committing absentee ballot fraud.

And the election is still almost a week away.

Here’s my question to you: How much faith do you have that our elections are honest?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: 2010 Election • Election Funding • Election Process • Elections
August 3rd, 2010
05:00 PM ET

How early is too early for presidential campaign to begin?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Right now, it's all about the 2010 midterm elections... or is it? As soon as the polls close on November 2 and the winners are announced, the focus will shift to the presidential race of 2012.

Even though that may seem far away... for some, the presidential campaign has already begun.

Potential Republican hopefuls are already logging multiple visits to key early states - like Iowa and New Hampshire.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.... he's set to make his fifth visit to Iowa next week... he's also made three trips to New Hampshire.

Pawlenty insists he won't decide whether or not to run until early next year. Maybe… but in the meantime he's working it.... big-time. Meeting local politicians, shaking hands with voters, making speeches about how to fix the country, talking about his blue-collar background, raising money for his political action committee... you get the idea.

And Pawlenty is not the only one. Far from it.

According to Radio Iowa, since the 2008 presidential race ended, the following politicians have been to Iowa multiple times: former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Also, former Governors Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and George Pataki have each been once.

It could very well be one of this crop who hopes to unseat Pres. Obama.

For the rest of us, this means before you know it… we'll be bombarded daily with polls and television ads and fund-raising pleas and debates... and all the wonderful things that go along with a presidential campaign. Wolf is positively giddy in anticipation.

Here’s my question to you: How early is too early for another presidential campaign to begin?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST

April 21st, 2008
04:45 PM ET

How can McCain catch up with Democrats’ money?

ALT TEXT

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Money talks, and these days John McCain is getting an earful. And it's not good.

McCain raised $15.4 million in March. Barack Obama raised more than $41 million in March, and Hillary Clinton raised $20 million in March.

Overall, McCain has raised one third of the $240 million Obama has raised and less than half of Clinton's total. The Los Angeles Times reports that Obama has raised more in small donations than what McCain has raised in his entire campaign.

McCain's advisers and some Republicans insist he'll have enough money to run a competitive race in the general election, but not everyone is convinced.

One thing working in McCain's favor is the Republican National Committee, which is overwhelmingly outraising the Democratic National Committee.

The Republicans have about $31 million in the bank, compared to $5 million for the DNC. Also, after his party's convention in September, McCain will probably opt for public funding of $84 million to run his general election campaign.

But that figure likely will pale compared to what Barack Obama might be able to raise with his network of about 1.5 million donors. Another problem for McCain is that several traditional Republican donors have been leaning Democratic thus far in the race. For example, the securities and investment industries have given nearly $7 million to Obama compared to $3 million to McCain. And, the real estate industry has given close to $6 million to Hillary Clinton, compared to $2.5 million for McCain.

Here’s my question to you: When it comes to money, how can John McCain catch up with the Democrats?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Election Funding • John McCain