to run for President? Why does it seem that the precieved front runner is deemed such according to how much campain $$$ that person can raise?
I may be worng but it seems that there are a few more important issues to be considered??
2007-07-10 05:23:18 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Lysdexic Princess--you are right! The two make strange bed fellows!
2007-07-10 06:36:34 · update #1
It isn't a matter of dealing with the issues. It is a matter of how much lobbying funds can you collect. The more you collect, the more you can spend. The more you spend the more influence and pursuasion you can muster up for your candidacy. The best and most worth candidates will not make it would lots, and lots of money to buy exposure.
The masses don't care about qualifications, if they did Obama (no foreign policy expertise) and Hilary (one time Senator) would be out of the race by now. Why are they in? They raise lots of money.
So it isn't issues. You can be as unqualified as the two above and get elected by popular votes (leading to electoral college commitment) driven by exposure, exposure, exposure. This takes MONEY.
2007-07-10 05:28:40 · answer #1 · answered by pokerfunman 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are right about theat. It was not always that way. I am seriously considering voting for a lesser known person who is running simply on those grounds. I know that the bulk of th American public will vote for the one with the most money because that person will be the winner and everyone wants to vote for the winner.
I truly wish more people would take the time to consider the issues. But all you have to do is look at the questions and answers on this site to find that most are only thinking about their appearance and their love life and being just like everyone else to know how most of the voters are thinking. Conformity is the way it is marketed and conformity is what we have ended up with.
2007-07-10 05:38:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You would think. But it's just another ploy by the media to basically tell you who to vote for, because the majority of the money that goes into a campaign comes from the same place that control the media, corporations...big business!
Our nation has a "might makes right" mentality. All things being equal, the majority of the nation would probably vote Ron Paul for President in a landslide. But no one knows who he is, and he's not a viable candidate because he doesn't have the money to be one. He's not supported by the corporations, because he wouldn't turn around and support them either. It's all a big scam, and we are the scammed.
2007-07-10 05:32:11 · answer #3 · answered by Mitchell . 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only issue is how much money you can raise .
Anytime a person puts his own money in people become suspicious and while Ross Pierrot May have made a good financial advisor or administrator he was not suited for the presidency nor is any person who is willing to spend more money for a job then it pays .
Support from the people is the proper way to get elected and that is not going to change till we begin to elect leaders in a different manner .
2007-07-10 05:28:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are not wrong, however us as Americans every year do not put the pressure on congress to have finance reform especially for the presidential election. So I blame us, not the people that stand to get rich if they don't win and keep that cash. If all the candidates quit right now they could keep every penny to themselves. Making a reform of this manor will ensure that companies, and interest groups can't buy politicians. So sir, you are right.
2007-07-10 05:29:31 · answer #5 · answered by Food For Thought 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because so few people in America research those important issues on their own, so the candidate must spend the money to get their message to those who, vote but vote purely on a party line and not what the candidate is truly about. The more money you spend on the campaign, the more of a message is sent to those who don't research. It sucks, but that's how it works. More people need to research the candidates before voting strictly for "their" party.
2007-07-10 05:27:34 · answer #6 · answered by PunkVader 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It takes money because they have to pay for ads. But it makes sense that the biggest money raisers would be considered the front runners. If someone else really was more popular, then they should be able to get people to contribute to their campaign, and become a big money raiser themselves.
2007-07-10 07:17:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
How would a candidate tell you his/her views on those important issues if they didn't raise so much money? The tv ads and campaign tours are expensive.
2007-07-10 05:29:41 · answer #8 · answered by Truth is elusive 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Agreed.
2007-07-10 05:27:56 · answer #9 · answered by gone 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is just the media's take. I liken it to people that think if you have a lot of money you are smart. No correlation what so ever, but there you have it.
2007-07-10 05:28:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋