When you vote for a candidate for President of the United States of America, does how much money the candidate has as an individual have an influence on if you vote for them? Why or why not?
To illustrate this point, lets say there are two candidates running for President for your party. Candidate A is a multi-millionare while Candidate B is a Middle Class citizen. Would you most likely choose Candidate A over Candidate B or choose Candidate B over Candidatte A?
2007-11-08 12:59:24 · 9 answers · asked by Mr. Knowledgeable VI 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Well I relate to being middle class so thats a plus. But I care more about their leadership and the direction they want to see this country going. Let me hear both sides.
Money probably matters most in an election in terms of who gets the most advertising out there. The more people who know your name the more likely you'll get the vote. When we have the big elections. theres always all these other canidates running and usually I haven't heard of them. But if I know even one persons name on the ballet I'm more likely to pick them compared to someone I haven't heard of.
2007-11-08 13:05:16 · answer #1 · answered by Kellie 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1. The amount of money a candidate has affects the public's opinion of her or him, regardless of what any smug person might type on here. There is a positive correlation, as money can buy more support (bribery), propaganda (conditioning), and votes. Money can even be used to discredit opponents by using paid agents to dig up and air dirty laundry.
2. Plenty of very rich candidates are dressed in poor people's clothes, so to speak. Ever wonder why Bush paraded around on his ranch? He was never a common, middle-class farmer; it was all an act, and it worked (along with his money and familial ties). If you pretend to be a simpleton, the simpletons are going to like you more.
3. It is becoming more and more evident that "voting" on preselected, wealthy candidates who usually honestly don't differ much on issues is just a placebo. The public is made to feel they are participating, and that they have only themselves to blame should something go awry. There are several problems with this, and here are a couple of them:
A. The voting machines are just that - machines. They can be (and are) tampered with.
B. The reason electoral votes still exist is because the government does not trust the people enough to let them elect their own president. Why, if Kerry won the "popular vote", did he not win the election? Because your "vote" means nothing, whatsoever.
2007-11-08 21:36:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The problem is there are not, nor will there be in the conceivable future, any presidential candidates from the middle class. That doesn't mean there won't be any who grew up in the middle class or sympathize with the middle class, but to win they need connections and lots of money, and the only way they'll get those is by being rich and influential themselves and then schmoozing with a bunch of other rich and influential people.
2007-11-08 21:10:54 · answer #3 · answered by Whoosh 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A candidates personal money doesn't enter into my reasoning. Where they get their money to run a campaign does enter into it! Mitt Romney has spent 20 million of his own money, fine with me. Hasn't done much for him so far, has it? Most candidates have money, very few are without personal wealth. A number of them have earned their money, some have come from money, doesn't matter to me, Although I do tend to like the ones who have earned their money by work better than those who were born to it, but it really isn't all that important. It is the substance of the person running for office that I look at, not their personal money.
2007-11-08 21:12:08 · answer #4 · answered by geegee 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are no middle class citizens at the top, running for president. They are all rich.
To answer the question, no, it shouldn't matter, but since they are all rich?
2007-11-08 21:18:31 · answer #5 · answered by Dan H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No one who hasn't personally earned at least a few millions of dollars, and probably much more, should be considered for the Presidency of the United States, because he or she has not proven him/herself in previous occupations.
Do you want to put your faith in Joe Average?
2007-11-08 21:11:54 · answer #6 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't matter what i think, unless he (or she)has access to a great amount of money, he can't run. Bloomberg spent $60,000 per vote to win Mayor of NYC. Imagine Pres?
2007-11-08 21:24:57 · answer #7 · answered by Bob H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the millionaire was self-made Id go with him.
2007-11-08 21:09:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No Way!
Usually the richer they are the more corrupt they are.
2007-11-08 21:03:12 · answer #9 · answered by Elutherian 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋