English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Ok I've seen that this question has already been answered but with no backing of how it is possible. Everyone answered that Ted Kennedy is in office because he has money. ??? He didn't give me any money to vote for him. That fact that he killed a lady aside, he is the worst politician I've ever seen. The things he says are just absurd. I can't find one person that voted for him. SO there are three questions I have; 1. Who voted for him? 2. Why doesn't he need campaign adds? 3. How can he use his money to buy votes when he doesn't advertise? Do rich people's votes have more weight than mine? That last question is a two-part question.

2006-11-08 09:17:15 · 8 answers · asked by ME 3 in Politics & Government Elections

8 answers

He is the second longest serving Senator currently in the Senate (behind Byrd of West Virgina)

1. I didn't vote for him as I am in California. Only those from Mass. could have voted for him

2. You don't need ads if you are so far ahead of your opponent that it does not matter

3. Buy votes? In your opinion. Do you have evidence to back up your statement? If so, forward it to the FBI.

Rich people, poor people - you only have one vote. As a rich person you can donate large sums of money to a candidates election fund which gives you more access.

2006-11-08 09:19:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

The answer to your questions are all very simple! He is established in office, and nobody from his own party has so far offered a serious challenge. Unfortunately many in both parties are so indoctrined to vote a certain way - they will vote for anyone who runs under the party banner - just to ensure their party holds that seat - effectively turning all elections into a meaningless numbers game. The parties have gotten so full of themselves this way - that the individual candidates have become disposable (Look at what happened to Lieberman).

In the case of Kennedy, and many others on both sides, as long as they follow the party line - they are guaranteed their respective positions.

2006-11-08 17:26:51 · answer #2 · answered by gshprd918 4 · 1 0

Well, for one it's really hard to remove long standing incumbents from office because their name is so widly known people will tend to just vote for a name they can recognize. Also the area is very heavily democractic so they would have to put up an excellent candidate against him to even think about winning. Also, he does do a lot for that area and he's very passionate in his causes which a lot of voters tend to respect.

2006-11-08 17:26:11 · answer #3 · answered by Kevin 3 · 1 1

I would answer from the back-
3) he does not use HIS money to advertise. he uses taxpayer money, AKA "porkbarrel projects" to buy the votes.
2) his campaign ads are the money brought to his area. 70 bilion for the "big Dig" alone, if I heard right.
1) who votes for him? everyone who makes a nice living out of these projects and everyone dumb enough to believe he cares for the poor, needy, minorities, environment, etc

2006-11-08 17:24:35 · answer #4 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 3 1

I have heard he does alot for his district but I dont know never seen proof of it.

then I have also heard he circumvents the rules where he lives too so I would think that would bother some. Who really understands politics. some just more than others.

2006-11-08 17:22:35 · answer #5 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 2 0

I have the answer to all of your questions.
He's rich.
The Senators and many members of the House of Representatives don't represent you or me. They are there because they represent the rich. Consequently the rich people make sure he is re-elected.
100 years ago we stopped adding members to the House of Representatives, by their illegal vote. Our population has tripled but there is NOT ONE new member to represent us...Jefferson declared 1/30,000 today it's 1/ almost 700,000. Now there's real representation, eh??????????

2006-11-08 17:24:41 · answer #6 · answered by imask8r 4 · 0 1

1. The bleeding heart liberals
2. He's famous
3. He promises it to all the people who are already using the "system"; Yes if they have power to go along with it.

2006-11-08 17:24:07 · answer #7 · answered by diturtlelady2004 4 · 1 1

Yes the murderer is still alive, and unfortunately still alive.

2006-11-08 17:20:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers