Money vs. volunteer labor in campaigns: What's more vital ?

[steve2470]

Yes, I know that a candidate like Hackett needs both, but which is really more vital ? Can a decent Democrat win in this country unless he or she has a giant bank account ?

[1932]

1. Money buys media. Volunteers get out the vote. You need both.

But if it were an either/or, take the money and buy robocalls and cab rides.

[DanCa]

2. Effective use of both

You just can't throw money at a problem and expect it to be the be all and end to a solution. Give me a small cracker jack staff with lots of energy than work force with no direction and lots of energy.
It the correct use of numbers and deployment that matter . Have a peaceful night DU and all of you earned it.

[AlGore-08.com]

3. It's different in every campaign

There's an art to getting the right balance... it's very hard to acheive.

[expatriot]

4. let me tell you that as far as paid labor vs. volunteer labor....

from my experience (which hasn't been much but was quite extensive and intense in 2004) - volunteer labor can do (and did) do everything that paid labor did and much, much better. I saw on several occassions where volunteers with certain skill sets took over certain tasks assigned to paid labor (with the paid labor's blessing). Of course you can't count on such good volunteer resources so paid labor is necessary to keep at least a minimum level of consistent quality.
But overall... the more you can count on volunteers for the "ground campaign," the more you can focus all cash into "air support." You really can't win without both fronts.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Can't give you a number or %, but you need enough volunteers to

literally ask for people to vote for your candidate. That means more than a few people doing the phone bank. You need enough people to show up at places like supermarkets, train stations, etc. to educate and persuade one person at a time.