Does the amount of funds and donations a Presidential candidate have really matter anymore?

Question

When ever I watch politcal coverage on national news or online, they always rate a candidates chances of winning by how much money they have raised. Now, with the extremely vast audience the Internet has, a candidate can reach out to scores of millions from just one interview or rally. So is being the highest grossing candidate really all that important anymore?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying money isn't important in an election, all I'm saying that the amount money you have doesn't necessarily determine your popularity and chances in the election.

Answer 1

I thought well of course it is, but thinking about it I would say its a good question anyway.
But maybe its not the money so much as the social aspect of it. Much of their money is raised at fund raisers for the rich and elite. those 1000 dollar or more a plate parties they have and things where they get to rub elbows with the elite and smooz them.

Answer 2

The Illuminati-Staged US Presidential Election
http://www.rense.com/general58/suspre.htm

WHO BELIEVES THE LIE THAT ANYONE CAN BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A.?

The Illuminati rule America! Who are the super rich "elite" Illuminati and their associates? The Queen of England, her husband Prince Philip and the Royal House of Windsor, the hierarchy on the board of directors of the Vatican, including the Pope; the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, Duponts, Fords, Carnegies, Melons, Bush's etc. To get the details of who the Illuminati are, put Illuminati in www.google.com

It is not the American people who choose the President and Vice President of the United States of America, but rather the super secret "shadow government" called the Illuminati/New World Order who choose them!

Various researchers including David Icke in his book, "The Biggest Secret", point out that all 43 men who were Presidents of the U.S.A. are related, and that 33 of the Presidents can be traced back to the bloodline of Charlemagne, who in the year 800 was crowned by Pope Leo III to be Holy Roman Emperor, the first head of an empire that would last over 1000 years! This should be setting off major alarm bells in your mind. Like this is no coincidence. The odds of all 43 Presidents being related, and this just randomly happening, are billions to one. Democratic and Republican candidates are "chosen" by the "Elitist" super rich organization called the Illuminati. Democrats and Republicans and the Illuminati would not want you to believe any of this. They don't teach you this in schools and for good reason: the Illuminati want to stay hidden. They do not want the masses to know that their small secret organization even exists so they can covertly continue their rule.

This farce called an "election" shows that America is a one party state. Both Democrats and Republicans work for the agenda of the Illuminati. They create a charade that looks like each party is different, but in the end the Democrats and Republicans vote for anything the Illuminati want in order to push forward the Illuminati agenda for "total world domination". This is why actors make such good politicians because this whole covert political charade at this time is an "act" being played out to control all the people in a so-called democracy. If you'd like to know who is going to win the U.S. Presidential election, just call up super wealthy David Rockefeller and he can tell you today because it's all a "staged event". This may be challenging for most people to believe, but it's true and if given the chance and enough money to fund a proper investigation, this can be proven. There is no "true" democracy in America, only an illusion that looks like a supposed democracy. Currently democracy is imprisonment disguised as freedom.

Answer 3

I think that in America one should not need money to run for president and I feel that this has really hurt our choices in candidates. Hopefully with clean elections and the net this can change back. I'm not against money and I understand that some people think a person should finance their own run as they would not be suspectible to bribes but it has gotten way out of hand where one needs to be a millionaire to run.
Of course there are tons of millionaires within a three mile radius of my house, so it's not all that uncommon anymore either.
I think it would be more fair to allow all the candidates air time on a public station like PBS and give each equal time a couple of days of month, like for debates, people might watch them if they were not bombarded with commercials and lots of people including myself don't subscribe to cable. I won't pay to watch commercials. I have not seen any debates run on public tv.

Answer 4

Yes. And all the candidates should be limited to the amount they spend, all the same allowance, and more importantly, they should not be allowed to campaign more than four months out from the election date. Then the excess money can be placed into areas such a health insurance for the poor, food for the hungry and so on.

Answer 5

Both parties usually nominate the candidate who can raise the most cash. They believe that this is what gives them the best chance to win. History has proved that they are correct.

I would be a very nice thing if the only thing that matter were ideas. But that is wishful thinking.

Answer 6

Yes, money buys add time on major networks. You have a very valid point, but the problem is that it dosent work on your scale. The average person still gets his news from television. The internet mostly reaches people who younger, or just trying to find evidence to support their previously held beliefs. Money is especially important during that time right before the election, the swift boat campaign did major damage to kerry's campaign.

Another example is Ron Paul, he is huge on the internet right now, but absolutely nowhere else. The media says he has no chance, so the average person wont give him one.

Answer 7

well the highest grossing candidate among the republicans is romney and he's stuck in third behind guiliani and a guy whose raised no money: thompson. so i dont agree that polls are always based on money raised.

to answer your question though, you cant win the general without loads of money. consultants charge hundreds of dollars an hour, ads cost millions, and travelling with an entourage is incredibily expensive.

look at ron paul, he can thank the internet for his following. he's even won a few debates. but he has less than 1% of the support of rep primary voters.

Answer 8

They have been elected almost completely on fund raising.
The majority of people will make a final decision on who to vote for in the last 3 months before the election & most of those will be influenced by the commericals & ads.
It is sad but history has shown that the majority of voters have no clue as to how their canidates voted in Congress, what they believe & etc. A bordering county to my county elected a registered Communist Party member because he had catchy ads & was registered Democrat.

Answer 9

the internet will develop the means of a presidential candidate to realize human beings. in spite of if, funds nonetheless concerns for numerous motives. First, you nonetheless desire human beings on the floor working get out the vote efforts. on an analogous time as volunteers are significant too, it helps having an experienced individual working the sphere operations which expenses funds. 2d, through fact multiple politics is "defining" your opponent, you like human beings doing study on your opponent to verify the place he has completed something which will seem out of touch with what the electorate desire. back, volunteers can perform a little of this artwork, in spite of if it helps having knowledgeable experts. third, on an analogous time as some issues would be completed for loose on the information superhighway, maximum of those are passive -- hoping for electorate to come across you. I helped a candidate in 2004 -- admittedly an prolonged-time in the past in internet time -- and we've been given some hits on the information superhighway internet site yet no longer sufficient to win only with a passive internet site. greater energetic makes use of of the internet require funds. besides, having a tech-friendly team who knows a thank you to maximise the internet marketing campaign back expenses funds. Fourth, back on an analogous time as the internet is becoming in attractiveness and is transforming into mandatory through fact the appropriate thank you to realize particular electorate, it rather is not however the appropriate thank you to realize maximum electorate with certainly one of those repetition that it takes to be sure that electorate undergo in innovations what message you're conveying. television continues to be appropriate for politicians for an analogous reason it continues to be appropriate for washing detergent. in short, it is going to nonetheless take a significant quantity of funds to be a workable presidential candidate. in spite of if, in each marketing campaign, there is relatively a selection funds that makes minimum difference. on an analogous time as having greater allows you to do greater, there's a saturation element. there is likewise a element that it relatively is complicated inspite of the appropriate polling professionals to make a correct determination as to the appropriate place to spend your funds once you're surely working no longer one race yet 51 separate state races.

Answer 10

If you remember Bush's statement " Money Trumps Peace", Then you'll realize that "Money Elects Presidents"!