Jeb Bush has won the race hands down. That would be the money race, not the race for the nomination. These are two entirely different matters and the Bush camp should be cautious about conflating the two.
The Post reports, “Jeb Bush’s money juggernaut is far eclipsing the efforts of his would-be rivals for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, putting his two political committees on pace to amass an unprecedented sum of tens of millions of dollars by early spring. The former Florida governor’s overwhelming dominance in the race to line up financial backers has come at a speed that has impressed long-time Republican money players, who say wealthy party backers have rapidly migrated to Bush since 2012 nominee Mitt Romney decided against another White House run two weeks ago.”
There are a few reasons for his extraordinary success. Surely, the loyalty of big donors who go back decades with the family factors in Bush’s success. But Bush is also precisely what a lot of big money donors like to see — polished, smart, organised, comfortable conversing on a variety of topics, and projecting an air of competence. He is in his own right very effective with donors. And finally, Mitt Romney’s exit and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s surprising poor start left a void, which to the credit of the Bush operation, he was prepared to exploit immediately.
Money, lots of it, is needed to win the nomination and even more to beat the Democratic nominee, but with millions and millions in independent money and strong competitors with their own loyal donors, one can’t prevent other candidates from finding funding. Bush can have more, but he can’t get even most of it. Indeed with a well-oiled money making operation — not unlike Romney in 2008 — come substantial risks, especially for the Bush team.
The plethora of money stories no doubt come from money raisers and givers who love to chat with the media. But in dominating the news, the fund-raising and the news about the fund-raising come with considerable downsides.
First, impressing the media and intimidating candidates with a big money haul will, after the first round of headlines, get them headlines like “Bush tries to buy the race” and “Bush family rolls over opponents.”
By getting so much money before he’s done much campaigning anywhere, he risks fuelling the perception that it’s the Bush family machine at work, not the ideas or appeal of Jeb Bush, himself. The Bush team needs to be concerned that his campaign’s fund-raising shock and awe fan the flames of anti-Bush resentment and concerns about a Bush “dynasty.”
Americans love an underdog, and with huge fund-raising success, he may amplify Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s image as the scrappy underdog up against the big guns.
Second, fund-raising cannot monopolise a candidate’s time and focus, especially when there are questions about his “rustiness” as a candidate and criticism, warranted or not, about whether he embraces the grassroots.
For Walker, a breakout speech and effective interviews and appearances stirred interest and gained support, thereby fuelling his money operation. The perception is that he is “earning” donors’ support, not that the money is making him a front-runner.
Having the most money cannot create a sense of entitlement or an attitude of invincibility. A humble campaign that realises it has to win over voters, reach out to sceptics and gather advice from others is much more effective and endearing that a campaign telling others it is hopeless to resist and foolish not to sign up with him.
Remember, the bar is higher for Bush to show the earnestness and desire to win over voters.
And finally, while Bush is dazzling donors he is allowing perceptions to harden that he will now have to work overtime to combat. You’ve heard them: “He doesn’t think he needs the base.” “He wants federally run education.” “He is for open borders.”
These, I think are wrong, but that is what many activists and some voters are coming to believe and Bush has been too indifferent and too passive in pushing back. Frankly, Bush’s challenges remain self-definition, which he has barely begun to address.
Now, to be sure every candidate wants to have plenty of money. A lot of the backlash is certainly a function of resentment and will come from quarters that did not like Bush to begin with. But fund-raising this early in the race, and the predictable urge of some to boast about it to the media, should not push out all the other aspects of a race, particularly for this candidate with his particular challenges. Money cannot come to be seen as the raison d’etre of a campaign.
Now in fairness to Bush, he has a big foreign policy speech coming up this week. If it is big and bold, goes after the Obama-Clinton-Kerry foreign policy with gusto and is delivered with greater ease at the podium, that will earn him kudos. He can’t afford a timid or empty address, a speech that sounds like a candidate playing not to lose. But what would do Bush much more good than a great speech is some in-the-trench campaigning at the retail level and demonstrable evidence he wants to win over the grassroots.
Go on radio shows with conservatives who are not overtly hostile to him like Bill Bennett or Hugh Hewitt. Go to some candidate forums with social conservatives. Use the time at CPAC not just to deliver a speech but to talk and more important to listen to what activists are saying. Work on an effective stump speech and sit down with sceptical conservative leaders. Get sufficient staff on board to help with all that. And change the balance of his energies and hopefully of the coverage toward things other than fund-raising.
In politics as in life, money is great to have but can’t buy you love.