Folks have been marveling at the number of Republican candidates for president. My personal opinion is that none of these people have any chance of being elected (previous posting) unless, perhaps, they simply adopt the same political positions as the Democrats. Let’s assume that there is some chance that a Republican could win. Why are there so many more during this election cycle compared to previous ones?
How about this theory: the Clintons have shown that it is possible to become among the richest people on the planet by using the American Presidency as a springboard. The job is thus perceived to have a higher rate of pay than formerly and therefore there are more people who come forward to apply for the job. No political science degree required; just Econ 101.
What do readers think?
Related:
- May 2015 posting about the Clintons’ $22 million per year in earnings
- Wikipedia page regarding Harry Truman’s post-presidency lifestyle
It could be lucrative position even if Clinton levels of income are unattainable: era of guaranteed stock or credit securities returns is over and hedge – funding became hard and risky to compete against likes of Paulson and Soros. There are also benefits the position could provide for those who need to enhance already established fortunes.
Actually as long as you get money in your campaign accounts, you can later take it out and put it in your pocket. Not sure if you have to pay taxes on it. These are the same rules that allow retiring Congressmen and Senators to also take any/all of their leftover campaign funds and transfer it to their personal bank accounts.
Econ 101 would say you need to multiply the reward by the probability of receiving it to get the expected value. For most of those candidates the probability is so low that the size of the reward doesn’t much matter when computing expected value. This suggests something else is in play.
If comment 2 is true why not everybody is running? I am quite sure that there are thousands of high-value donors who are hedging their bets with donations to multiple candidates.
I think it might have something to do with how frustrating being in congress is these days.
That would argue for more Democratic candidates wouldn’t it? After all you argue that they have much better chances winning, so their expected return is much better.
I think it’s much more that Republican ex-presidential candidates have higher expected earnings in the media, entertainment, “think-tanks”, and penny-stock investment peddling/gold-buggery. Think Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, Cain, Ron Paul. I know what you’re thinking – that’s not Clinton level money-but they’re no Bill Clinton and it’s better than going back to Wasilla or Arkansas for these folks.
Running for president gives politicians something more valuable than the very small possibility of winning. Brand recognition. Sam Brown back, Lamar Alexander, Liddy Cole. The primaries are an easy way to get name recognition from the people that matter the most, the party’s most loyal supporters. Those aforementioned people all got pretty sweet gigs afterwards. People like Huckabee get their own shows.
Economically, it helps the candidates, but politically, it helps as well, even when you lose.
My preferred theory in two parts is:
A) National parties, especially the GOP, are weaker and more fragmented than they were in previous decades. The national party establishment doesn’t have sufficient solidarity and power to threaten and/or bribe second- and third-tier candidates in order to clear the way for a preferred establishment candidate like, say, Bush or Walker.
B) [It looks like Jimmy already scooped me on this one.] In the age of ubiquitous media, political party power is being replaced by personal brand power. Running for president is a great way to have donors pay for the marketing and development of your national brand. Even if you lose, you can then monetize your higher profile in a number of ways, including reality television shows (Trump, Palin) or a sinecure at, say, Fox News (Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin, etc.)