lamont has $300K, liberman has $4M.......is it democracy when wealth determines election outcomes?

Question

lieberman will bombard voters with his message...even though voters already decided against him........is this democracy when a candidate can purchase a seat in the US gov?

Answer 1

- lamont has $300K, liberman has $4M

What does that say? Maybe in general people feel more comfortable giving to Lieberman than LaMont.

- .......is it democracy when wealth determines election outcomes?

Well when Democrats and Republicans both give up using the media in any form it won't matter. But until that happens money still always be a factor.

-lieberman will bombard voters with his message...even though voters already decided against him.

No the voters haven't decided against Joe. The liberal wing of the Democratic party decided against him. That doesn't include everyone in the state.

-.is this democracy when a candidate can purchase a seat in the US gov?

Is it Democracy when one faction of one party can over ride what the whole wants?

Frankly I hope Joe kicks butt in November. Infact every time there's a CONSERVATIVE or MODERATE Democrat running against a liberal I hope the liberal loses big time. Zell Miller was a Democrat before most of todays liberal Democrats were even born. To hear him referred to as a turncoat by liberals because he didn't agree with them is BS. To hear the same said about Joe Lieberman is BS as well.

I'd vote for Joe just for the principle, but I don't live in his state.

Answer 2

Every voter has a mind, and the ability to decide whose message he or she believes and agrees with the most.

This is not about the candidate with the most money winning. Lamont has gotten so much free publicity and so much help from from the DNC that he can hardly claim hardship.

AND, I agree with Meow above - the democrats should be ashamed about the way they treated Lieberman. I don't even live in CT, and I donated to his campaign. And I am a conservative! But Lieberman has character and the strength to do what he thinks is right regardless of "party line."

Answer 3

It is not the fault of the person with the money, but the fault of the uneducated American voters. The public can easily eliminate the advantage a rich candidate may have by actually taking up their responsibility as citizens and informing themselves on the issues.

Answer 4

The Republican War Chest is five times as large as the Democratic War Chest - that money could feed a lot of starving people.

Answer 5

no, election law needs to be altered so that all major (congress, presidential, governor) elections are publicy funded ONLY. they should all have exactly the same amount of money to campaign, the only difference between the candidates should be their message, if you allow campaign contributions to decide elections, you end up with politicians that are beholden to the people that GIVE THEM THE MOST MONEY, not the people that vote for them

Answer 6

HA! So what has Lamont done??? I find it VERY, VERY hard to believe that Lamont is a REAL democrat...I think he is just a poseur. Like he really gives a ****about minorities or any liberal issues. What a couple of clowns!!!

Answer 7

we aren't a democracy besides! we are a representative Republic!! DUH!!! If we've been a Democracy Bush could on no account have had a seat interior the white domicile on condition that he misplaced the standard vote interior the 2000 election! Our forefathers did no longer want a democracy! They wanted to guard the minority from maximum folk!

Answer 8

I donated to Lieberman. Shame on the Democrats for their treatment of him.

Answer 9

Oh, you MUST be referring to Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and John Edwards as well. Or are you a HYPOCRITE?

Answer 10

Why didn't leiberman stand up like this when he was in the presidential race?