sys, is the money raised an actual indicator of who the people want to win and/or will be good at the job, or an indicator of who could win based on having suckered the most money out of people with which to survive campaign costs?
A lot of this seems like the dumb way movies are ranked based on how much money they brought in, when that's really just a function of how good a movie's marketing was and how much tickets were at the time.
Mostly the former.
At this early point, 10 months from the Iowa Caucuses, 11 months from Super Tuesday, the ability to raise money is very closely tied to how much money you already have, your name recognition, and media coverage. There are absolutely people donating to certain campaigns now that will change their horse at some point in this process. I've been contacted by Bernie Sanders campaign 6 times already, twice by Delaney, none from anyone else.
The media coverage is incredibly important. Mayor Pete got a CNN town hall because he has a unique story to tell. His candidacy got a huge boost from that town hall specifically his line about Mike Pence. If he didn't have that town hall, he wouldn't have anywhere close to the amount of money he has now. He is a prime example of being the beneficiary of a kingmaker.
