ONCE AGAIN THE KLOBUCHAR SPIN MACHINE IS IN OVERDRIVE
Congressman Mark Kennedy beats Amy Klobuchar in fundraising for the third straight reporting period, but MN Publius thinks Kennedy is "losing steam."
"He's [Kennedy] losing steam whereas everyone else is gaining momentum." Source: MN Publius
##
"Republican congressman Mark Kennedy has raised more money than Democratic rival Amy Klobuchar for the third straight reporting period in their battle for the U-S Senate seat being vacated by Mark Dayton.
Kennedy raised about nearly one-and-a-half (m) million dollars in the first quarter of the year. Klobuchar, the Hennepin County attorney, raised more than one-and-a-quarter (m) million dollars.
Kennedy finished the period with about 3-point-4 (m) million dollars, compared to two-and-a-half (m) million dollars for Klobuchar.
Overall, Kennedy has raised about 5-point-1 (m) million dollars, while Klobuchar has pulled in 3-point-7 (m) million dollars." Source: Associated Press, April 11, 2006
"He's [Kennedy] losing steam whereas everyone else is gaining momentum." Source: MN Publius
##
"Republican congressman Mark Kennedy has raised more money than Democratic rival Amy Klobuchar for the third straight reporting period in their battle for the U-S Senate seat being vacated by Mark Dayton.
Kennedy raised about nearly one-and-a-half (m) million dollars in the first quarter of the year. Klobuchar, the Hennepin County attorney, raised more than one-and-a-quarter (m) million dollars.
Kennedy finished the period with about 3-point-4 (m) million dollars, compared to two-and-a-half (m) million dollars for Klobuchar.
Overall, Kennedy has raised about 5-point-1 (m) million dollars, while Klobuchar has pulled in 3-point-7 (m) million dollars." Source: Associated Press, April 11, 2006
4 Comments:
Why must it seemingly be a competition about who can suck in the most private dollars? In a democracy, candidates should run based on their issues not on who has more money to run a dirty campaign full of mudslinging TV spots. Nothing like buying a senate seat.
"Nothing like buying a senate seat."
You have an ill-disguised contempt for the electorate.
Your assumption must be that the winner is the one who shows the most people the most commercials - that the voters are merely shallow, uninformed sheep who are easily hypnotized by cute graphics and short slogans. After all, that money must be buying something, right?
Maybe, though, you confuse cause and effect.
Maybe the higher total donations come from a larger base of supporters. This would seem to be the case if the per-donation amounts were roughly equal, right?
But, wait . . they're not, are they? Donations to Republican candidates historically tend to be much smaller per donation than those to Democrat candidates. Republican candidates tend to attract small, individual, "real people" donations, while Democrats attract the big, "fat cat" donations.
So, maybe you should rethink this whole "buying the election" theme. Seems to me that the attempted purchase is by the Democrat rich.
Kelly Doran proved that spending lots of money doesn't equate to buying votes.
Oh, Michael, you cut the article off before the good part:
"Although Kennedy out-raised Klobuchar, the first quarter represented a big increase for Klobuchar and a small decrease for Kennedy. "
Post a Comment
<< Home