I understand the fascination with campaign warchests that legacy media has since advertising dollars, particularly from political campaigns, is their source of revenue.
But why would the Arizona Agenda, which doesn't seem to be overtly dependent on ad revenue, be so fascinated with how much a candidate has in the bank? Is it a holdover from their big media past?
Or is it the only way to keep score about who is ahead and who is behind? Without constant polling, I guess that it is. We all love a good horserace, after all.
People like measures, even when they are imperfect - money is necessary for campaigns, but just knowing the amount raised can lead to poor predictions of success. Probably a better measure would be the number of donors - that indicated how many people both know of the candidate and are willing to at least do something for them.
Yeah, all things being equal, a million $1 donors is certainly better than a single million-dollar donor because that shows support, not just money. But it all spends the same.
Amount of money correlates well with winning, but if you don't count "safe" elections (for instance in overwhelmingly R or D districts), it correlates poorly. One problem with the measure is how money is spent, particularly when it is received (often too late to be useful) or how it is spent (adding even more direct mail or TV when the recipients are already saturated). I would agree that candidates do need to have enough, but there are market forces (campaign-industrial complex) pushing to always collect more. And every hour of call time is an hour not spent connecting with voters beyond bigger donors. Excessive fundraising comes with its own cost.
Yeah i mean it's just a metric of the seriousness of a campaign. And FWIW, reporters in corporate journalism don't actually give a shit about ad revenue -- it's not like they see any of it if the paper sells ads. I've never worked with a single reporter who even bothered thinking about - Will this sell ads?
Re crypto: the most charitable thing I can say about crypto is that it can be a highly volatile investment for speculators. Beyond that it fuels criminal activity and can behave like a Ponzi scheme. It is based on nothing.
I can't help responding to your title with an anecdote. Many years ago, a dear friend who's (originally) Belgian was going to get me tickets to a show in Brussels. After a while, not having heard from him, I asked him if this was still likely. Clearly understanding the adverb convention, he responded, "I am hardly working on it."
The change to a felony for Title fraud is long overdue. Title fraud is rising nationally and at a recent meeting of the State Assessor's association one of our larger counties decided to check past property transfers for forgeries and were shocked at the number that looked fraudulent-and this was a tiny search. Due the recent AZ supreme Court ruling, if fraud is not cured within 5 years a person can lose their property without recourse.
My office has started the 1st in the nation PAL program so that owner can register their properties against transfers without express consent.
I understand the fascination with campaign warchests that legacy media has since advertising dollars, particularly from political campaigns, is their source of revenue.
But why would the Arizona Agenda, which doesn't seem to be overtly dependent on ad revenue, be so fascinated with how much a candidate has in the bank? Is it a holdover from their big media past?
Or is it the only way to keep score about who is ahead and who is behind? Without constant polling, I guess that it is. We all love a good horserace, after all.
People like measures, even when they are imperfect - money is necessary for campaigns, but just knowing the amount raised can lead to poor predictions of success. Probably a better measure would be the number of donors - that indicated how many people both know of the candidate and are willing to at least do something for them.
Yeah, all things being equal, a million $1 donors is certainly better than a single million-dollar donor because that shows support, not just money. But it all spends the same.
Amount of money correlates well with winning, but if you don't count "safe" elections (for instance in overwhelmingly R or D districts), it correlates poorly. One problem with the measure is how money is spent, particularly when it is received (often too late to be useful) or how it is spent (adding even more direct mail or TV when the recipients are already saturated). I would agree that candidates do need to have enough, but there are market forces (campaign-industrial complex) pushing to always collect more. And every hour of call time is an hour not spent connecting with voters beyond bigger donors. Excessive fundraising comes with its own cost.
Yeah i mean it's just a metric of the seriousness of a campaign. And FWIW, reporters in corporate journalism don't actually give a shit about ad revenue -- it's not like they see any of it if the paper sells ads. I've never worked with a single reporter who even bothered thinking about - Will this sell ads?
Re crypto: the most charitable thing I can say about crypto is that it can be a highly volatile investment for speculators. Beyond that it fuels criminal activity and can behave like a Ponzi scheme. It is based on nothing.
I can't help responding to your title with an anecdote. Many years ago, a dear friend who's (originally) Belgian was going to get me tickets to a show in Brussels. After a while, not having heard from him, I asked him if this was still likely. Clearly understanding the adverb convention, he responded, "I am hardly working on it."
The change to a felony for Title fraud is long overdue. Title fraud is rising nationally and at a recent meeting of the State Assessor's association one of our larger counties decided to check past property transfers for forgeries and were shocked at the number that looked fraudulent-and this was a tiny search. Due the recent AZ supreme Court ruling, if fraud is not cured within 5 years a person can lose their property without recourse.
My office has started the 1st in the nation PAL program so that owner can register their properties against transfers without express consent.