Comments on: Super Tuesday thought

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:12:04 +0000

A problem with many charities is that some only collect money with almost all of their funds being used to collect more money, with just a bit going to good works.

When the political parties stressed primaries and people power, the value of the marginal vote soared as did the power of well disciplined issue groups. Our elected officials now have to devote too much time to collecting money and placating the issue groups. I like Mrs. Clinton as a person, but she hangs with the anti-nuke nuts, and she just can not understand energy issues at all. She said she was not good at math and science, and it shows.

I wish that we could return to smoked filled rooms, and let campaign contributers keep their money.

By: Jon Nichols

Jon Nichols — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:19:28 +0000

It does seem to prove, one again, that the ‘market’ (in this case the market for ideas) worked exceedingly well. John McCain saw a problem – politicians being bought by large contributors. His legislative attempt to fix this – McCain-Feigngold – was, I would say, a failure, insofar as the goal was to make the public feel more accountable, and I doubt that’s the case.

However, McCain’s latest attempt is very market-based. Provide a service that people want. If, as he says, people really want a politician not beholden to his contributors, then, he can campaign in this way. And it’s largely working. Like him or not, I think most people would say that McCain is fairly consistent in his beliefs, and sells himself this way.

The market triumphs again.

By: Hazel Stone

Hazel Stone — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:27:18 +0000

By that logic, McCain is screwed.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:20:39 +0000

Steven Levitt in his book “Freakomonics” also makes the point that it is the likability of the candidate and not the amount of money he spends that determines whether or not he is elected.