With the Primary Election coming up, many politicians are battling it out to win the title as their party's representative for the presidential election. While I was looking at the list of people running under each party, I realized there were a bunch of names I have never even heard of. I am pretty sure the majority of people cannot even tell me which party Tom Tancredo is running for. There are many other names such as Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich that are unknown to me. Although I am not the smartest when it comes to political knowledge, I can surely guarantee that the candidates mentioned above will not win the presidency in 2008.
I wonder how if it is worth it to run for presidency if you know you have no chance in hell of winning. I know miracles can happen but I bet these candidates are realistic and know in their minds they won't win. How do you feel about these bottom feeder candidates who run even though they don't stand a chance in winning? Do you think it is worth while for these candidates to campaign and use (waste) their fund raised money (from their few supporters) even if they know they are going to lose? POST YOUR THOUGHTS!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
i think that it is a good thing for so many people to run. like you said, most of them have no chance of winning, but the simple fact that they are there presents competition to the other more serious candidates and causes them to improve their policies in order to gain more popularity.
my bad... i accidentally clicked continue before i entered my name, so that post was from me
I think it is good to have more people run because often these unknown candidates have orginal fresh ideas. Although, they may have no chance of winning, their ideas can filter up to the two main parties can influence our political atmosphere.
I think it's good for more people to run for office whether or not they have a realistic chance of winning. If everybody was scared of losing or not succeeding in something, nothing would ever be accomplished and no new inventions would be made. Also, it's obviously more democratic if more people run because then more peoples' voices are heard.
I think that a major candidate would probably want to appeal to the lesser known candidates' supporters in order to get their votes. I think that because of this, the more popular candidate will try to woo these supporters by assuming some of the other candidates' positions and ideas.
Also, less popular candidates definitely make a difference in elections. For example, Ralph Nader in the 2000 election: many Democrats voted for this guy, even though he obviously had no chance of winning. I think Gore would have wanted to woo his supporters and get their votes. So, in the end, lesser known candidates can make a huge impact.
I think its good to have so many people running for office because they have so many views and one of there issues that they believe in could help the country out because then one of the main people running for office would have to use that issue to help them out. A similar situation though is why play the lotto maybe these people think that maybe they can be that lucky person that wins it all.
Great comparison, Robby. Also, even if we don't know who that candidate is, he has to come from somewhere. That means he's gonna be getting some votes from where he IS popular. Right?
But can't candidates be "dark horses" too?
But I generally disagree that having more candidates would improve their policies. Because there are so many candidates, candidates will try to differentiate themselves against one another, and that might push their plans to the two extremes. This was mentioned in the textbook, page 516 I believe.
By running, like my dog Perot, you influence the other candidates policies. Even if you know you have no chance in winning, true candidates would prefer to see their policies put into place without the fame of the presidency, or so that is how I feel. So if they make Clinton change her policy on one thing, even if it is small, they did a well done job in my book. Who cares about the wasted 20 million dollars, right?
I think that it is good that there are smaller unknown candidates, whether they are Democrat, Republican, or third party candidates. Though they might not have a chance at winning they can have a huge impact on the elction. For example Nader's involvment in the presidention election might be the only reason why Bush was elected president. Those smaller unknown candidates are an important part of our political system. Plus, we don't want to have a system in which there are only two systems because then the democracy of our system is dimished.
Competition is always good. it makes sure that everyone is trying their best and keeps everyone honest. I think it is sad that there is so little chance for so many people, but on the other hand the makes sure that the best people are in power. just having all those people running spreads diversity and provides the voters with an array of choices.
If competition is always good, then why can't other countries develop their nuclear technology?
Post a Comment