Wednesday, March 04, 2020

Would You Prefer A Super-Rich President Or A Middle Class President?


I put this together yesterday while I was waiting for Super Tuesday results to start coming in. I was too distracted to do anything more useful or worthwhile  So this is what each candidate has-- calculated before the Great Trump Crash of 2020. And, yes, Señor Trumpanzee actually may be a billionaire-- by the skin of his teeth:

Status Quo Joe




Why no Bloomberg? Like Trump, he's puts a tremendous amount of energy and resources into hiding his worth and even his personal financial disclosure report, which is due to come out "after" today. According to excluding home equity, the average presidential candidate owns assets worth $208.5 million, compared to $29,410 for the median American. The average candidate was $16 million in cash savings, compared to the average American, who has less than a thousand dollars in cash savings.

They asked a bunch of economists "All else being equal, who would make the better president: someone rich or someone poor?" Here were the responses:
Drew Landry, Assistant Professor of Government, South Plains College: "No difference. We had good presidents who were rich, bad presidents who were rich, good presidents who were poor, and bad presidents who were poor. This is clearly subjective."
Richardson Dilworth, Associate Professor, Drexel University - Department of History & Politics: "I don’t think we’ve ever had anyone make a serious run for president who was actually poor. If all else were indeed equal I don’t think the financial condition of the candidate would determine whether they were a good or bad president-- and being a 'better' president is a pretty subjective judgment."
Brandon Rottinghaus, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Houston: "Mount Rushmore has presidents of high and modest means. Presidents are honed by their experiences and shaped by the history into which they are elected. How rich or poor they are is less important. In recent polling, we asked voters if they would be more or less likely to support a billionaire for president. Most voters indicate it makes no difference to them, but more responded it would make them less likely to vote for a billionaire candidate. In today’s populist polarized climate, being a billionaire is a net neutral edging towards a net negative."

Labels: ,


At 7:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gilens & Page demonstrated that it doesn't matter what We the People want. Democrats argued in court that they don't have to provide fair electoral processes, and the court agreed. Just as you once belonged to Hillary Clinton, now you are expected to belong to Joe Biden even if he will bring you a terrible future. The Party can choose the nominee in the smoke-filled rooms no matter how you voted.

After this election, I will not ever again vote for a candidate who is backed by the Party during primaries.

At 9:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

nodding enthusiastically in agreement. 7:40 gets it.

But the whole question posed and all the psycho-calisthenics doc'd are a waste.

It would be much better to have a president possessing kindness, empathy and a true sense of community (with the 99.99%). His net worth would be irrelevant, except that the richer one is, the more of an entitled asshole he tends to be.

Pity America has spent the past several generations "choosing" for the assholes, in a truly Darwinian sense.

Carter was our last good man in the white house. And while he was there, he seemed more intent to impress the assholes and elitists than in being what he became once he left office.

Since then, we've insisted on choosing sociopaths, elitists, a couple of psychopaths and two or three certifiable imbeciles. There have been zero who possess(ed) kindness, empathy and a true sense of community (with the 99.99%). We voters insist on never finding any such person. Even the losers in each presidential races since 1984 have been a motley collection of the opposite of what we should be seeking.

It is possible that AOC and the 'squad' could qualify. But Bernie's experiences in '16 and now prove that the party will "select" against those qualities, and voters will also do so. AOC's charm and physical beauty might be a wildcard. But the party will remain immune to such things, even if voters are succeptible.

But by the time AOC is old enough, elections will probably have become archaic anyway. I'm quite sure voters will be relieved they won't have to choose any more. Americans seem to yearn for their "betters" to make their choices for them.

We suck at choosing anyway, as the past 40 years prove.

At 7:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sheepdog's question.

I would prefer a president that is neither a Nazi nor a democrap. And I would prefer a different party than either the Nazis or the democraps.

short of that, nothing changes. ever.


Post a Comment

<< Home