If a candidate does not have money, they are not serious

[redqueen]

Poll question: If a candidate does not have money, they are not serious

and should not be included.

Agree or disagree?

Seems like WAY too many people seem to think the pay-to-play system we have is just fine and fuckin dandy.

[againes654]

1. If they don't have money

they most likely are not taking bribes from lobbyists and big business, and therefore the best candidate for the job.

[redqueen]

3. Seems pretty logical to me!

[againes654]

6. It is such a catch 22 these days though

I really hate that people like my main man, Kucinich, get tosed to the back of the bunch because they won't cater to the homeland security lobbiests (HRC)

[iamthebandfanman]

25. yup but

when its the lobbyiest and special interests that pay for most functions ........

thats why gravel and kucinich were excluded, had nothing to do with having an office.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

2. Adamantly disagree. n/t

[TahitiNut]

4. Why do you hate America? It's "one dollar, one vote" in America!

:dunce:

[The2ndWheel]

5. True

The statement is true.

Whether or not I agree with the statement makes no difference, as I have no money. That probably means I disagree with it, but, again...no money.

[redqueen]

8. Ah, an acknowledgment of reality...

as opposed to a claim that there's nothing we can do about it and we should just get in line and vote with the big money.

:thumbsup:

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Kucinich was not excluded from Harkin's steak fry because of lack of funds

It was due to his failure to establish a campaign organization (office, staff) in Iowa. If he has money to go to Syria, he should have money to establish a campaign organization in the first state to cast votes.

[redqueen]

9. Who said anything about a Steak Fry?

Was he also excluded from the debate for not having a campaign office?

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. That seems to be what some of the Kucinich people are bellyaching about today

[redqueen]

13. Oh, so you're just gonna ignore what I'm talking about in THIS thread

and talk about whatever's on your mind?

:rofl:

Okay!

:hi:

[harun]

16. I see this reasoning all over and it is a bit silly to me

Why should someone not having a lot of campaign staff in Iowa cause them to be excluded from events?

[redqueen]

18. Cause it's Harkins' event... and Harkins says so!

:bounce:

[redqueen]

10. Wow! Four votes for true!

I wonder how many are just observing the corporate takeover of politics...

versus how many think it's just GRRRRRRRRRRRRRREAT!

[Greyhound]

11. Kick

:kick:

[OHdem10]

14. The Media would explain it this way--

The candidate can be serious himself.

The candidacy after a certain point will not be taken seriously
unless they have raised sufficient funds to mount a credible
campaign.

It is assumed that person who has a real shot will convince enough
people to donate and support him or her.

It is the candidacy that is not taken seriously. IMO, all the
candidates are serious. The top 3 have been able to convince
more people re candidacy thus raising the most money.

This is our system right now. Money to buy lots of TV Spots
is king.

[redqueen]

15. It's just that I'd think most people here would see through the game.

Seems like most are fine with playing by the rules set up by the corporatocrazy.

Oh well oh well!

[stillcool]

17. pay to play

survival of the richest.

[redqueen]

19. And most here seem to think it's just fine and dandy!

Wow... up to seven votes now... amazing.

[stillcool]

22. nice work if you can get it...

one big money-laundering operation.

[NoPasaran]

20. In 2003-4 Howard Dean raised boatloads on money from small donors

And this year Barack Obama is doing the same thing. Like it or not, running for President is an expensive proposition and any candidate who isn't serious about raising funds---somewhere---is really not serious about running.

And likewise, is a candidate can't be bothered to have a campaign office in a state, they're not very serious about running in that state and I don't see why they should be invited to every speaking event.

[redqueen]

21. So you're in the "Yes, and I think it's fine" camp...

Thanks for chiming in.

:hi:

[NoPasaran]

23. Whether I "think it's fine" or not

It's the way it is.

And you can either wring your hands over it, or play the game to win.

[redqueen]

24. Not wringing hands...

just trying to highlight how fucked up it is... hoping that those who don't like it might decide not to support those that won't speak out about how fucked up it is.

:hi:

[NoPasaran]

26. Sorry

I rode the Dean Express all the way to Heartbreak Junction last time. Not planning to go through that again.

[redqueen]

27. I guess I gots a hard head... or I'm a masochist... ;)

Seriously though... I do believe it takes all kinds... the idealists, the pragmatists, and the ones who combine the best of both. :hug: