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.
Does the GOP harm themselves by having so many Candidates? I ask because we keep getting more and more names being thrown into the ring and I would think that with the funding being spread out over such a large field does that not reduce the chances of the major candidates by limiting them being able to get out their message? Not to mention that we know that there are still some major players that have not even declared yet. understand it is always good to have a choice but too many choices could also reduce the ability of the best candidate to win against their opposite number. Can't the GOP come up with a few really good alternatives or is the GOP not as tight knit as many assume?
Its still early and the field will narrow quickly. There is only limited amount of resources, money, donors and ideals. Iowa will solve that issue.
But the advantage is the DNC and the left has touse resources defending their poliesby all of thes GOP Candidates.
Does the GOP harm themselves by having so many Candidates? I ask because we keep getting more and more names being thrown into the ring and I would think that with the funding being spread out over such a large field does that not reduce the chances of the major candidates by limiting them being able to get out their message? Not to mention that we know that there are still some major players that have not even declared yet. understand it is always good to have a choice but too many choices could also reduce the ability of the best candidate to win against their opposite number. Can't the GOP come up with a few really good alternatives or is the GOP not as tight knit as many assume?
The Republican Party has embraced hate and anti-intellectualism.
What we're seeing is the unavoidable result: A party driven by talk-show demagogues. With a primary that looks like a Jerry Springer episode.
I don't see how it can hurt, there really is no "dominant" Republican out there, and a lot of candidates gives a lot more voices and different reasons why, in their opinion, Mrs. Clinton is no darn good for the country. That is the main issue the people will be considering, whether they want change, or just a continuation of the status quo with Clinton.
If the people ultimately decide they don't care for change, and think everything is peachy keen, nothing the GOP can do about that, so it really doesn't matter if there are many or few candidates.
If the people DO want change, it might be because so many different voices gave different reasons for rejecting the Clintons.
I would think they could come up with a way to address the issue, limiting both Parties to a set number based on support or whatever rule of thumb they can come up with, far too much money is thrown away on some of these candidates and I doubt it does either side any good. I agree that some that run have to know they have no chance of getting their Parties nomination and it does make one wonder why they waste all of the funding when they know it is a dead end.
Anyone who has the chutzpah to run for President has to have a lot of self-confidence and ambition. Power is as seductive as wealth, and the president of the United States of America is the single most powerful person on the planet.
Just the thought of running is enough to tempt any otherwise sensible person who lives and breathes politics into entering a race that is essentially free to all. If that person has the ability to pull a few believers with him into that same seductive territory, money will follow. For the completely unknown, the money might not be much in comparison to the others, but its still more money than the person ever got in one lump ever.
I agree, Casper. Money was thrown around extravagantly in 2012 by all sides. Most of it had no effect on the outcome at all. While its obvious that some fat cats really enjoy playing political money games, I think a million dollars is still a million dollars. It math not be as much as it once was, but it's still a hell of a lot of money by anyone's standards.
I'm not sure that the big contributors of 2012 are as eager to go another round like they did in 2016. There have to be some who feel guys like Karl Rove cannot deliver the goods as they once could, and they may be seeking other ways and means to get a little something back for their financial commitment.
That bothers me, as there are lots of people who are cheaply bought. And at the same time, the incontrovertible fact is winning the Presidency now requires enough money that an entire nation could run for a couple of years on what will be spent before Nov. 2016.
The only solution is a vast overhaul of our election system, and that's never going to change for as long as money is so important to all candidates at all levels. The SCOTUS decision made those changes even more remote than they were in the recent past.
Getting a public referendum on campaign reform will require a very strong politician with nothing to lose to ever get it done, and even then, a referendum could easily fail. It's a very knotty problem for sure, and I don't know how it can ever be untied.
In that you are 100% correct and many voters would simply walk away from American Politics if that is what the ultimate choice comes down to.
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.
Narrow down the field.
