Why is it so difficult......
- Thread starter Tgace
- Start date
Here are my thoughts:Tgace said:
1) Maybe to get that high up on the ladder as presidential candidates, they have to basically give up a lot of their privacy to the public eye. Not too many people are willing to do that nor assume the headaches that come with such political posturing from the people around and within the parties.
2) It used to be that candidates could come directly from the "commoners" (like us who don't typically run for governmental offices). Now more often than not, almost every presidential candidate has had political training by ascending through the governmental ranks (whether through Congress [Representatives/Senators] or their County/State governments).
3) It takes a lot of money to run in a national election. Very few commoners are well padded, or have a large enough backing from groups willing to finance them. To succeed, a person often has to be affliated with some special interest groups that are willing to lend the needed support and money. This frequently means that, in a way, you can't be wholly independent from the desires of these groups.
I suppose we could get some "good" people through the usual process. However, for those who can actually bring up valid ideas that will make good changes and who aren't influenced by their governmental "training" along the way, it is a tough road.
- Ceicei
CeiCei hit alot of the main points.
The process has been 'tweaked' to limit the selection to a select 'elite'.
- You can't fund it all yourself, you must seek outside funding.
- Non-career politicians seem to be at a disadvantage
I read somewhere that the person who wants it most, is probably the worst person for the job.
For example, Bill Gates repeatedly has refused to run due to the inefficiency in the government. Now, we can say what we want about his company, but few can argue that it's not been running efficiently, unlike most governments which are bloated with dead weight, patronage jobs, and other inefficencies.
Personally, I miss Ross Perot. He may have been a bit nuts, but he does understand business sence, something that is in low supply in the last few administrations.
The process has been 'tweaked' to limit the selection to a select 'elite'.
- You can't fund it all yourself, you must seek outside funding.
- Non-career politicians seem to be at a disadvantage
I read somewhere that the person who wants it most, is probably the worst person for the job.
For example, Bill Gates repeatedly has refused to run due to the inefficiency in the government. Now, we can say what we want about his company, but few can argue that it's not been running efficiently, unlike most governments which are bloated with dead weight, patronage jobs, and other inefficencies.
Personally, I miss Ross Perot. He may have been a bit nuts, but he does understand business sence, something that is in low supply in the last few administrations.
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
Howard Dean seemed to come close to countering this. He was a doctor and unless I'm mistaken, relied on the internet for much of his campaign support. Then came the caucuses, and the scream, and it was all over.Kaith Rustaz said:
Let's see, Perot ran in 1992, so I was only ten years old at the time. I'm curious, what was so great about his policies that so many people say they miss him? Just the fact that he was a successful independent?
Re: Perot - Much of the message has blured with age (man...I'm only 33.... 
) but I remember it making sence to me then. What he said fit with how I believed things should work. He was for streamlining the government, cutting the waste and had a 'no ****' attitude that was refreshing. He did an excellent showing for a 3rd party candidate...all on his own dime too. So, the PTB changed the rules and limited how much of ones own money they could spend to run. 1 of the things that I liked was he said "I have enough money. I'll do this for free".
I think he threatened the whole 'payola' industry thats firmly entrenched in our government. After all, how can you bribe someone who can drop $60+ Million of their own cash, not miss it and offers to work for 4 years for free?
Re: Dean - Sadly, I never got much behind Dean, as I think his positions were much too different from mine at the time. Now of course, it may be different. Doonsbury liked him...maybe thats why I didn't? :shrug:
) but I remember it making sence to me then. What he said fit with how I believed things should work. He was for streamlining the government, cutting the waste and had a 'no ****' attitude that was refreshing. He did an excellent showing for a 3rd party candidate...all on his own dime too. So, the PTB changed the rules and limited how much of ones own money they could spend to run. 1 of the things that I liked was he said "I have enough money. I'll do this for free".I think he threatened the whole 'payola' industry thats firmly entrenched in our government. After all, how can you bribe someone who can drop $60+ Million of their own cash, not miss it and offers to work for 4 years for free?
Re: Dean - Sadly, I never got much behind Dean, as I think his positions were much too different from mine at the time. Now of course, it may be different. Doonsbury liked him...maybe thats why I didn't? :shrug:
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Who do you think would be a 'good' candidate?Tgace said:
or
How would I know a 'good' candidate when I saw one?
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Simple: voters usually don't want them.
Do they not want them, or is the deck stacked against them?
M
MisterMike
Guest
michaeledward said:
Someone who wants everything I do for the country.
He'd look like me.
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
You know, at that point you could just write yourself in.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
You could take a cue from Michael Moore, and run for office.MisterMike said:
Similar threads
- MisterMike
- The Study
