Why spend millions?

Question

With the exception of 1 or 2 people, why are all the other candidates spending millions of campaign dollars, some owned by taxpayers, when they've simply got no chance at winning the election?

The person(s) I'm talking about is/are Hillary Clinton and/or Barack Obama.

I'm getting very, very enlightening answers. I'm so glad I posted this question.

Answer 1

Though I agree with your premise (at face) I can think of 5 more qualified, more logical choices that are running, and still don't stand a snowballs chance.
-Huckabee - The best unelectable candidate ever.
-Biden - liar, plagiarist... still more qualified than the other 2.
-Brownback- this guys glass is full after it's been knocked on the ground by a hoodlum... I wouldn't be surprised if he weren't still running on January 5th 2009.
-Hunter
-Tancrado

Answer 2

First, most of this money is being spent 2-6 months prior to the first vote being cast. At this time in 1991, it was clear to everyone that George H.W. Bush was going to be re-elected and that all the Democrats were wasting their money. Needless to say George H.W. lost. Taking the Republican side in this race, most observers in January thought that John McCain would be the Republican nominee. You get in the race hoping that your message will strike a chord in December 2007-February 2008. It is only when you reach that time that you find out that it was all for naught.

Second, most of these candidates are spending less than $10 million each. That is about the same that they will spend on their next Senate campaign.

Third, some of these candidates are running just to force the other candidates to respond to certain issues. Tancredo and Hunter, for example, know that they are long shots. Their presence though forces other candidates to take a stricter position on immigration than they otherwise would to avoid opening the door for Tancredo or Hunter.

Answer 3

These candidates are not spending their own money. These campaigns are funded by corporations, wealthy individuals and monies which were earned by fund-raising events. The reason corporations would finance a candidate is so that if the candidate is elected, that corp. would have some preferential treatment coming its way in the form of favorable legislation or tax cuts. An individual would contribute to a campaign because he or she sincerely believes in the candidate.
And, who says that these other candidates have no chance at winning? There have been many "dark horses" who have won the presidency.....in fact, Abraham Lincoln was one.

Answer 4

its just the corrupt system that both the republicans and Democrats have abused and passed to benefit and keep the system rigged for only there benefit

we need true campaign reform

1. u can only donate to people u can vote for
2. no pac's, corporate, lobbyist, or foreign donations
3. must be us citizen to vote
4. unlimited donations but public list of the donors and how much they have given
5. 6 month campaign cycle
6. no matching federal funds
7. no donations to political parties, the politicians can give a part of there raised funds to their own parties ( cause you cant vote for parties, but for people.)

ive gotten to the point that we have reformed it for the last 200 years by vague laws and they keep corrupting the laws about it, i think its time to spell out to the letter what they can and can not do concerning it. I am also looking for more ideals to refine mine or add to it about things i missed