Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Somewhat of a rhetorical question, but it seems that Populist candidates never attract enough support from the American People. We seem to want to stay with the establishment candidates.
I think America has blinders on. Like we have been brainwashed to believe the policies we have now will work if we just keep trying. Sorry but we need to go old school and start over.
Why is it people with 5 posts to their name always bash the populist candidate?
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he won't, although I guess I did unintentionally. I guess a better way of asking is why is there such contempt or skepticism about Populists.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he won't, although I guess I did unintentionally. I guess a better way of asking is why is there such contempt or skepticism about Populists.
Ok, everybody deserves a second chance, including America.
Paul isn't a populist. He is the most conservative member in Congress. He's got the best record with taxpayers, and consistency. Why that hasn't turned into votes, we don't know. His support is grass roots based. He was asked to run.
Right now, he's around 4-15% in the polls depending on which you see. There's been three primary /caucus votes so far. So it's a long way from over.
And while other candidates are out there spending their money, Paul is sitting on a war chest. If he's spending it the right way, he will get real support at the ballot box.
All in all, there's time, and the media really isn't following him around because he doesn't beg for votes.
Somewhat of a rhetorical question, but it seems that Populist candidates never attract enough support from the American People. We seem to want to stay with the establishment candidates.
Because big business controls the election and media spin which controls public opinion and the elites are against populist ideals.
Ok, everybody deserves a second chance, including America.
Paul isn't a populist. He is the most conservative member in Congress. He's got the best record with taxpayers, and consistency. Why that hasn't turned into votes, we don't know. His support is grass roots based. He was asked to run.
Right now, he's around 4-15% in the polls depending on which you see. There's been three primary /caucus votes so far. So it's a long way from over.
And while other candidates are out there spending their money, Paul is sitting on a war chest. If he's spending it the right way, he will get real support at the ballot box.
All in all, there's time, and the media really isn't following him around because he doesn't beg for votes.
Yes, it's pretty undignified for a reputed candidate for President to lower himself to asking people to vote for him.
Somewhat of a rhetorical question, but it seems that Populist candidates never attract enough support from the American People. We seem to want to stay with the establishment candidates.
Populist campaigns generally don't go anywhere because:
(1) On the political front, most populist campaigns are driven by to some extent by anger (i.e. anger at the establishment, anger at large corporations, anger at the government, etc.). This will attract a certain hardcore and impassioned type of voter, but in a general election, most people want to vote for someone that inspires optimism as opposed to someone that seems to be looking for a fight. Think of the contrast between the speeches for Barack Obama and John Edwards - while Edwards has a hardcore group of supporters, people in general are drawn more to the optimism of Obama (just as they were to optimists on both sides of the aisle before, whether it's Ronald Reagan or JFK), and I'm saying this as a Republican. Mike Huckabee's low-key campaign might be somewhat of an exception, but most populists seem to have a certain type of fervor along the lines of Edwards or Pat Buchanan. That might work for a handful of primary wins in populist-heavy states, but it's a negative on a national scale.
(2) On the economic front, enough people understand that the economic policies advanced by populists might sound good in speeches for the "common man" but really don't work. Railing against businesses that are the ones that provide jobs in the first place isn't going to achieve much, particularly when the most populist areas seem to be the ones that need to attract businesses the most (i.e. industrial Midwestern states). Raising taxes (even if they are supposedly targeted for the "rich") doesn't do anything except give the government more money to spend (as opposed to some convulated argument that people need to pay their "fair share", even if they are already paying a significantly higher percentage in taxes already). Free trade policies that many populists oppose have a net positive gain for the majority of Americans in the form of increased job opportunities and/or lower costs for goods and services. I understand from a political perspective as to why groups such as labor unions would support populist candidates, but from an economic perspective, populist policies, such as protectionism, have nearly always backfired to have a net negative effect on the economy. Thankfully, there are enough people that understand the basic principles of economics in this country such that populist candidates rarely win national elections.
Because big business controls the election and media spin which controls public opinion and the elites are against populist ideals.
Because populist ideas/positions only sway people who think they are victims and want the government to take care of them but actual populist programs impact everyone, not just those people, with the associated tax increases to pay for those populist programs and more ineffective government dictating how we should live our lives.
So, if you're not a victim, can't point to an efficient federal government operation but you pay taxes (and everyone does), who are you going to vote for? It's not the populist guy.
That's why Edwards and Huckabee will tank, eventually. There are just more taxpayers than the people they are trying to appeal to.
That's why Edwards and Huckabee will tank, eventually. There are just more taxpayers than the people they are trying to appeal to.
I agree with paperhouse (who posted above) that Ron Paul is not a populist in the same vain as Edwards. Paul's platform is about Constitutionality. In that sense it is "anti-populist" in that it is a platform that seeks to remove government intervention, not what can government do for me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
