Would America ever vote a regular, middle-class, non-party affiliated, divorced, veteran for President? Why?

Question

It is sad when I think of who will be the next President of the US. I don't feel that anyone that will be nominated truly understands what it is like to be an average American citizen. Is it possible for someone who always had everything or has never known what it means to struggle a bit, to truly understand the majority of the American public. Does our next President have to be a Yale or Harvard graduate or even a current politician? Do they have to be a millionare simply to qualify? Do they have to have influence over big businesses or have been partners in a big business? Big money represents about 1% of our population, and control the US Government. Which means the middle-class has no representation. I believe that if a middle-class person were to be voted in to the Presidency, there would be such an uproar. Most of these high powered, rich politicians see the Presidency as their birthright, instead of an opportunity to take care of the majority of its population.

Answer 1

Americans will most likely never vote in a regular, middle-class, non-party affiliated, divorced person for president. There are too many things in there that offend too many people.

The middle class will vote their identity (their yearning for being above middle class) rather than their best interest. SO they are more likely to vote for someone who has had a better life than they have. Also, if a candidate is upper class, they have more ties to big business and thus, people might believe they can pull strings to make things better (when our current president has proven that isn't true).

Republicans and Democrats will vote for a major party person and there aren't enough Greens, Independents, Whigs or what have you to vote for a non-party affiliated candidate. We are suspicious of someone who won't commit to a party.

As far as divorce is concerned, as long as we are a "Christian nation," divorce is looked down upon in our leaders, regardless the divorce rate in this country. We want our leaders to be family men (and not women) who are strong leaders. How can we trust them to lead a country when they can't lead a family.

We are more likely to consider upper-class rich men with major connections through education and/or military who are married (even if they've been divorced and remarried), preferably with children (because the middle-class is defined by those having children) who will do anything it takes to win.

Sad isn't it.

Answer 2

"Regular"? What does that mean? "Divorced"? What difference does that make? Why did you even bring it up?

"Is it possible for someone who always had everything or has never known what it means to struggle a bit, to truly understand the majority of the American public[?]"
Of course it's possible. Why do stereotype? Why do you think that wealthy people don't understand? Have you ever heard of FDR and JFK? Has it ever occurred to you that you think in terms of stereotypes?

"Does our next President have to be a Yale or Harvard graduate or even a current politician?"
As far as I'm concerned the answer is no to the first part and yes to the second. No, I've never heard of anyone ever -- never, never, never, not ever -- saying that anyone who isn't from an Ivy League is disqualified from running or getting elected. Personally, though, I do not want green-behind-the-gills rookies with no prior political experience running for the highest office in the land.

"Do they have to be a millionaire simply to qualify?"
No. But what's wrong with being a millionaire?

"Big money represents about 1% of our population, and control the US Government. Which means the middle-class has no representation."
Let me guess. Oliver Stone was the source of inspiration for this paranoid drivel, right? For Pete's sake, man! How "big" is "big"? Where the hell do you get this 1% statistic, your imagination? Why do you think that 99% percent of the public is not being "represented"? Where does this ridiculous paranoia come from?

Answer 3

Unfortunately nowadays it takes money, and big money, to campaign ... gone is the day of Abe Lincoln, who didn't have two cents to rub together ... the only way this could be solved would be if we forbid lobbying, and contributions to a particular party ... we could do here as they do in other countries .... the big companies who feel the want to contribute to the political process could pay into a kitty, which was then divvied up between the parties equally ... and they could darn well make do with that ... maybe, if we declared open season on lobbyists and prevented big corporations from buying up administration after administration, we might get a proper President, and a proper administration, instead of the plastic imitations we have to make do with nowadays....

Answer 4

Are you a 50-60 year old man with a famous father who was a failure all his life?

Do you support aimless wars for oil in foreign countries without any proof that said countries harm the United States?

Do you oppose the highly successful Social Security system and do you plan its demise based on fraudulent proof that it will soon be bankrupt?

Are you so religious that you think braindead, comatose women in hospitals can suddenly get up and walk again?

Do you want an approval rating that is below 30%?

If you answered yes to the above, you might be the next president.

Answer 5

Rudi Guiliani would be your man, but probably considered too liberal to win the Republican nomination. Still he started out of reasonable means not extreme wealth as a NYC Prosecutor, moved up the ranks until earning the respect if the citizens to become Mayor of NY and is just the kind of outsider (outside of DC) we all could use a good dose of. I'm hoping he takes on Condi as his running mate.

Answer 6

You may be right.

But please compare what we do in the US to the rest of the World. Of course, power stays with those in power. To think that will change is naive. Maybe it would be good, but what are the chances that those controlling the government would let that go?

Things could always be better, however, when we look at the rest of the world, where nothing is better and most are worse, we should be grateful for what we have.

Answer 7

You are a very smart man. I would vote for you. Seriously. I see what you're saying. How can some rich politician from a rich family and perfect life understand and relate to the vast majority of people out there that didn't have that priviledge.

Answer 8

Never again. It saddens me to think of all of the teachers and people in jobs designed to help people that are underpaid while we spend millions of dollars on elections. You have to make money in office or it wouldn't be so attractive. Katherine Harris is running for the US Senate seat in FLA and has put up 3 million of her inheiritance to run for an office she probably won't win. So how can a regular person compete - they can't. Nice idea though.

Answer 9

nicely, maximum of united states is, as is clear by using his great help. notwithstanding, there are nonetheless those who opt to carry to an old racist ideology. do not get me incorrect, a tremendous kind of the individuals vote casting for McCain are hardworking honest people, as are those vote casting for Obama. It amazes me how 2 people can get alongside so nicely till they exhibit their politics. unexpectedly- that hardworking honest humorous guy is now a backwards racist hick-and that sensible calm and collected guy turns right into a limpwristed socialist radical. Politics are a plague that infects in the different case sensible people to take aspects antagonistic to at least one yet another even as they actually might want to artwork mutually inspite of their differing beliefs. the threat isn't from the final public who're waiting, yet from the racist minority which aren't to any extent further.

Answer 10

True.

In Canada, we have the same problem too. Our last few prime ministers were multi-millionnaires who didn't have a clue how ordinary Canadians lived. Stephen Harper, our present Prime Minister, and former Prime Minister Joe Clark, come about closest to being ordinary, although they were still above the middle class ranks themselves.