Why do Presidential candidates stay in the race if they have 5% or less and have no chance?

Answer 1

Certainly there is a lot of ego and idealism involved, but don't forget good ol' greed and lust for power.

First of all, once candidates leave the race they can't have any more fundraisers. Candidates who stay in long enough and perform well at primaries can even qualify for matching funds. When was the last time you heard a full accounting from a candidate saying where all the unspent campaign money went?

Second, candidates are also looking out for their own political futures. One candidate may be in fifth or sixth place overall, but maybe he/she has garnered support among a particular segment...maybe he/she' very popular among elderly voters, or woman voters 25-40 (and yes, they do maintain statistics on all of this).

That candidate may approach one of the frontrunners and say that those voters can be "delivered" to one of their campaigns...for a price, of course. The highest runner-ups on the food chain will be considered for VP, but others may get cabinet positions or a favorable nod the next time they want some legislation pushed through.

Aint politics grand?

Answer 2

It depends where the five percent came from. Fox News...Rupert Murdoch regularly hosts Hillary fund-raisers. He wants the Republican candidate most likely to continue the current path to get the nomination, which would be Romney or Giuliani. That person would then be soundly beaten in a national election by Clinton, but blowing horns and waving flags all the way down. Fox stays the privileged channel of big government.

As to the second part, who are you to say who has a chance? "Fringe" candidates regularly do well when civil discontent is at a high point, and it is right now. People in America are angry with their government, and you have to acknowledge that no matter what you believe on any one issue. Go take American history in a public high school, and find the number of Presidents who were "dark horse" or long shot" candidates.

However if you look to a real poll (say the latest Rasmussen ones) and find a Republican candidate in NH polling 7.5% and growing rapidly in a traditionally libertarian state you, being an astute and unbiased observer, think to yourself, "Self, this is another Pat Buchanan brewing, and I should get to know this guy."

AND THEN YOU GO DO SOME FRICKIN RESEARCH.

You know who I'm talking about just like I know who your question's aimed at.

Answer 3

there are a number of reasons a candidate polling at 5% would stay in the race. the first and the lions share of the answers given so far is that it's not over until it's over. like clinton in 1992. though news coverage and reach has changed substantially since 1992. still a scandal or even a boost in an early voting state like iowa can make a big difference. look at kerry over dean in 2004.

the other reasons are more subtle but easily as significant:

these candidates can draw attention to a specific issue or issues. the fringe of the party generally does this as many candidates run to the center for general elections to get the substantial independent vote as most voters are decided before the campaign even begins. there is speculation that only 7% of the electorate is up for grabs and tend to be centrist. when running in the primaries, candidates that go to far to the left or right tend to have those views hammered in the general election. (high domestic spending/social programs/anti-war for the dems, abortion/gun rights/anti-gay for the republicans). hillary and rudy are running the closest to the center right now, and are getting a tremendous amount of flack from their primary opponents for not being 'true democrats or republicans' for their respective views on voting for naming the iranian revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization which the pacifists believe could lead to war (hillary) and being pro-choice and pro-gun-control which base republicans are fervently against (rudy). both of these candidates views are more mainstream and will poll well with independents.

which brings us to the next reason. these lesser candidates, if appealing, can be brought in as running mates for the general election. obama has a substantial fund raising machine and younger support on the dems side. huckabee is a charismatic southern baptist on the republican side. both are appealing as running mates, bc they can bring the fringes back into the fold in the general election (though obama is running higher than 5%, the point is still valid)

Answer 4

In politics its never over until its over and even then its not over. Many of candidates have come back from overwhelming odds and won the nomination. Sleepers just have to do well in one of the first primary states to stay in the competition. Even if they lose the nomination they now have more name recognition for the next election or perhaps they can bring a different population to the polls to vote then the person who wins the nomination so they make him/her the vice-president.

I think the sleeper in the next election will be Mike Huckabee. Conservatives are not happy with their candidates and worry that there party will be driven to the left. They dont like Giuliani bc he's too liberal, Thompson bc he's too old and does not have enough political experience, and Romney bc he may not bring their christian values to the white house. Mike Huckabee has many things going for him: from the south, younger apperance, former Baptist priest, and holds all major conservative beliefs. Also, he is so far behind in the polls that no one thinks that he will win so no one is attacking him. He is the embodiment of what the right would want to follow Bush. You will notice that he's polling numbers are steadily increasing while the other republican candidates are decreasing.

Answer 5

Well my sarcastic side would say because they have the money and nothing better to do with it, look at everyone that runs for president do you ever see someone like "us" running for office.
But I think the real reason is there is always a small chance things will change, if Gore runs Hillary would have a lot more of a fight.
Not sure on the republican side, they all seem to be pretty much the same to me none really stand out as a leader so they say, why not stay in and hope one poll will change Americas mind or one slip in a speech.

Answer 6

Many polls are very flawed. Gallup polls being based on land line telephone calls, which ignores a huge portion of population. We shouldn't base opinions, thoughts, or feelings on anything so mundane and non-modern based. To use such polls as an absolute measure, or even a slight measure, is a severe handicap in analysis.

Most, post debate media polls have shown Ron Paul winning. It's weird, polls are good when a neo-con wins, but when A man like Dr. Paul wins them, they are flawed? MSNBC and twice on Fox post debate polls, Dr. Paul has won those debates. More then 5% there, more like 70%.

Also, the straw polls ahev Dr. Paul winning over 40% in first place and over 60% in the top 2. Better then any other candidate. These polls are actually held in places that require voters to show up and vote. More statistically viable then both phone and internet polls.

Dr. Paul wins voting polls and online polls. The people support him and it is more apparent, looking at the size of his grassroots movement, which is bigger then all other candidates combined. He also has more military contributions and small donations then any other candidate. Meaning he has the troop and everyday American support.

A candidate has both the military and common man, behind him? Freedom and liberty brings together all types. Check out Ron Paul, on most statistically sound polls, he is actually winning.

Answer 7

Apart from everyone posting an answer to this particular question, a good portion of Americans are not politically inclined.

Voters have yet to draw conclusions of who the best candidate is (regardless of polling) until the field is narrowed down. Polls are nothing more than a 'snap-shot' of candidate popularity at that specific time. Polls are only a good rule of thumb to estimate that popularity, and should be discarded 30 seconds after reading.

Answer 8

Jimmy Carter had 1% of the vote before he won in the Iowa
caucuses. Polls are meaningless. If polls meant something then Fox News would not ignore their own polls, when Ron
Paul won three consecutive debage polls. In those polls, some of the so-called frontrunners were below 5%. Based on a rationale that those under 5% have no chance, then the
'top tier' candidates should all drop out.

Answer 9

The candidates who hold on the longest against the highest odds are generally those who have the most deeply-held convictions about the office of President.

They're not doing it for money or power, but for principle.

You can be sure that their party hacks are doing their best to convince them to drop out "for the good of the party". But a truly principled person says, No thank you, and carries on.

Sometimes running for President isn't all about winning, but about making a stand. Our country is clearly foundering in debt, a worthless war, and the erosion of our personal liberties. Few of the so-called frontrunners are paying attention to any of that.

Also, isn't it the height of arrogance for the media to declare through their precious little polls whether someone is or isn't electable?

I think that choice is yours and mine, not the media's or some pollster's.

Answer 10

At one point in 1991, Bill Clinton was polling nationally at 2%. That's why.

I agree that in the Republican race; I don't really understand the longshots, either. They have nominated whoever was leading the polls by Labor Day of the year prior to election every race since the 70's. As a party, they generally have their minds made up long before election day - But I don't blame Democrats for playing it patient through the early primary process because their voters tend to be more open-minded...