How come bill richardson is so unpopular in polls (and implicitly with most of you reading this). Is it because you know nothing about him? Is it because you want just another Washington insider like obama or clinton? Is it because he favors decrimiliazation of marijuana? Is it because he stresses bi partisianship? He is the best candidate imo and yet only has 4% in the polls. Makes me sad to see how far down the crapper this country has gone. First we re-elect george w, and next we get zombies like clinton and obama who are just wolves in sheeps clothing (meaning rebublicans and democrats high in the ranks have the same agenda, and are essentially the same party) how about Arnold for 2012, might as well keep going down a downward spiral!

Any feedback would be welcome

I think the problem is most people get on the media hype bandwagon.
A candidate is here "today gone tomorrow"

Also people feel like they are throwing their vote away on somebody that they feel nobody else is going to vote for. Like they say about the libertarian party.
If the vote is 36 Republican, 30 Democrat, 24 libertarian
They say that the 24 could have made the difference for the Democrats.
So that is another reason people stick with the popular.

LOL interinfinity! In my opinion Bill Richardson did a very good job in the debate on Saturday night. The problem is money. It always is. Romney was an unknown and started running a heavy duty television advertising campaign pretty much overwhelming all the other candidates. He is filthy rich and was using his own money to buy exposure. Richardson either doesn't have the money, isn't in the position to do the same, or just doesn't want to dip into his own piggybank. His ads were very limited and so were his appearances in NH until the past month or so. I can't speak for what is going on in other states. If McCain didn't win the NH vote, he would have dropped out last night or this morning because he doesn't have the funds to continue. But, now with this win, his candidacy is viable enough for people to throw money his way. People don't place bets on losers. They want to back the winners so that when the time comes, they can ask for a favor. Isn't that how the Washington machine works?

Frankly, if I were a smart person, I would say that what Richardson is doing is making enough noise and showing just enough of a backing, so that one of the Democratic frontrunners will approach him to be their Veep when the time comes. But, I am not smart. ;)

By golly it must be racism! I mean, is America really ready for a Hispanic president? Seriously, I don't know what his problem is. The governor of our neighbor state, he's a good guy and all that but he apparently hasn't done much to distinguish himself in the race and the media attention is on Hillary and rock star Obama. So, it's up to those Dems to tell us why they aren't supporting him.

Arnold can't be President because the Constitution prevents it .

I would be inclined to support Richardson if I was a Democrat. He is the best of their field only because he is the only one left who can truly claim that his vast experience qualifies him for the job.

Quote:

---

Richardson had one of the most wide-ranging resumes of any candidate ever to run for the presidency, bringing experience from his time in Congress, President Clinton's Cabinet, in the New Mexico Statehouse as well as his unique role as a freelance diplomat.

---

Politics | Richardson to End 2008 Presidential Bid | Seattle Times Newspaper

But I disagree with most of his policy positions .


He would've needed to attract money and to do that he first had to prove he is electable. It is not a money first issue. Money comes once the base thinks the candidate can win.

My impression has been and continues to be that he was in audition for a Vice President position . Today's headline is that he plans to drop out .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Arnold can't be President because the Constitution prevents it .

---

I ignored this part of the OP because I thought it was a joke. Although most of us know that he can't be President, I remember hearing some years back that he and/or his cronies were looking to see if they could manage to change that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I would be inclined to support Richardson if I was a Democrat. He is the best of their field only because he is the only one left who can truely claim that his vast experience qualifies him for the job. Politics | Richardson to End 2008 Presidential Bid | Seattle Times Newspaper

But I disagree with most of his policy positions .

---

So, are you a hard, stick to your party, kind of guy Tom? What I found interesting in the primaries in NH is that an IND can vote for anyone in the primary. I actually think that is a better systems than NY. What do you think is the point of registering independent in NY or any other state with the same guidelines, if you can only vote in the General Elections? All of us can vote for whomever we want in the General Elections. I have always felt registering as an Independent in NY is a waste of a vote.

When I first saw the Richardson ads on television here, I liked what he was saying so I did some digging to see what his platform was. I was very disappointed. I find the guy likeable but I think the answer to interfinity's question is what you have stated. His policy positions are not appealing to the masses. That is why he didn't garner the votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

He would've needed to attract money and to do that he first had to prove he is electable. It is not a money first issue. Money comes once the base thinks the candidate can win.

My impression has been and continues to be that he was in audition for a Vice President position . Today's headline is that he plans to drop out .

---

Of course money/donations comes once the base thinks the (average) candidate can win. The majority all do their research prior to announcing a candidacy. If they can show that there is interest, people will throw money their way, up to a point. McCain (who has managed to pull through that rough spot for now), Biden, Dodd, Richardson, are good examples of that, and we know as we progress, there will be more candidates that will eventually pull out of the race as the financial support wans. But, when you get a guy like Romney or Ross Perot, even if they do research and find that most people don't know who the heck they are, they have the deep pockets to create a presence and gain some momentum. Romney, and Perot would have been a blip on the screen smaller than Biden or Dodd were, and would have dropped out early as those two did, if they didn't have a personal fortune to dip into.

I thought Richardson did poorly in the New Hampshire debate; I believe it was ABC that I saw. He would begin his answer to a question, muddle around in useless details, and then give his first statement again as if a summation. He appeared unresponsive and befuddled. He is not a Washington outsider and his resume is good. I have always thought highly of him, until this past weekend.

Quote:

---

So, are you a hard, stick to your party, kind of guy Tom?

---

That wasn't really my point. My point was ;of all the Democrats ;he is the one I would most likely vote for in the present field . If Joe Lieberman were to run I would give him hard consideration . If Zell Miller were running he would have my vote. I voted for an independent in 1980 and again in 2000.

Richardson has no dough, and that's the grease of American politics.

If that were the case then John Kerry would've won in 2004 . Ross Perot had plenty of money . Even Ron Paul is breaking fund raising records . He is going no where however .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

I thought Richardson did poorly in the New Hampshire debate; I believe it was ABC that I saw. He would begin his answer to a question, muddle around in useless details, and then give his first statement again as if a summation. He appeared unresponsive and befuddled. He is not a Washington outsider and his resume is good. I have always thought highly of him, until this past weekend.

---

Interesting George. I did think he had a couple of incidents where he wasn't getting to the point quickly enough and stumbled a little, but I felt overall he handled himself well. He talked about his positions and was quite animated about it when he did. When the Democratic debate began, I thought all four of them were boring and not responding well. Hillary was clearly exhausted, which told me that (aside from all the other problems with her as President would create) she is going to have trouble in her decision making processes if she doesn't have enough stamina this early in the game. But, at least she talked about her positions, more so than any other candidate on that stage. None of them showed much animation until at least 15 minutes into the debate. By the second half, John Edwards finally opened his mouth, showed some fire and talked positions a bit. Obama didn't really say anything solid In my opinion.

Tom, I was only asking that question about party lines because I just wanted clarity as to where your head was at on that subject.