I started to put this in the comments as a response to Tater Tate in the post below, but I think I’ll bring it top side for commenting.
Let’s just make an assumption that some of you can feel free to disagree with, but I think is valid: the Abramoff scandal is not hurting Ralph Reed with voters right now because no one is paying attention. As Tater mentioned in the comments, I had a similar experience over Christmas — not one person really cared.
But, let’s assume that the Cagle campaign is made up of competent strategists (it’s not really an assumption. It’s a known fact actually). So, they have to make some shrewd and honest calculations. One of those calculations has to be on fundraising.
If I were a Cagle strategist, I’d venture to say that a strength of Reed’s is his ability to raise money from influential people connected to the President’ campaign. In fact, if I were a Cagle strategist, I think I’d go out on a limb and say Reed has a significant ability to outraise Cagle based on his connections acquired through his own dealings and his dealings on behalf of the Bush campaign. I’d then do what any strategist does and this is to figure out how to neutralize that advantage.
How about scandal? Nothing makes a donor turn cold faster than the potential of connecting the donor to a scandal.
So, my speculation is that the Cagle campaign has been pushing the Abramoff story out there as much as possible not to hurt Reed with voters, but to hurt Reed with donors. And, from talking with friends and acquaintances who are Reed donors, I think there just might be some impact. We’ll know for sure in a few days.
Now, of course, in writing this, it seems so obvious, perhaps I’m late to the party on this. What are your thoughts? Have I missed the mark?