Candidates don't want to be associated with poor people, people who have jobs or are ugly; they want to be associated with a certain middle class demographic, so as a result they leave those others out completely.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I do not believe wealthy candidates should spend vast resources in their own campaigns.
There is a real diversity of talent and background on the A list so as to better reflect our society in all walks. There are people who have been candidates before, Councillors, Doctors, business leaders, charity campaigners.
People read inevitability as entitlement, and the American people want their candidates to sweat for the job. They want them to actually make a case for the job.
Well, I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment, and I've learned quickly these last few days that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.
There is this notion that the lives of the comfortable-off middle class don't merit being treated seriously and with compassion.
I think that the American people are curious about who a candidate is, what their background is, who their family is, what their faith experience has been, their education, their work experience. All of those are factors that voters look at because they want to take a measure of the individual.
You can only choose between rich and poor. The middle class is gone.
I think it would be an extreme poverty indeed if there weren't more than one person willing to compete for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party.
Democrats don't relate to middle-class people.
People who are much too sensitive to demand of cripples that they run races ask of the poor that they get up and act just like everyone else in the society.