[majewsky]

Of course they're coming from within the oligarchy. How is an "outsider" going to succeed, when you need massive campaign funding to even make an impression in the primaries?

We might see a more diverse background in revolution leaders if people take it one step further and ignore the democratic process.

[cm2187]

I think even within the oligarchy there are people who are not amused to see the wife of a former president competing with the son and brother of two other former presidents. You don't have to be out to dislike this system.

[raverbashing]

> competing with the son and brother of two other former presidents

Sorry, who are those?

[cm2187]

Not sure if your question is rhetorical, I am assuming not. Bush & Bush junior.

[raverbashing]

Ah no, it wasn't rhetorical. Are you referring to the current election? I only see Jeb Bush in the list

[cm2187]

Isn't he the son and brother of two former presidents?

There is a level of endogamy in american politics which is spectacular, even by european standards.

[jcranmer]

About a year ago, I came across an article of political dynasties in US politics. The Bushes came in at #7. The Clintons didn't make the list (the requirement for being considered a dynasty was three generations). The top 10, in descending order, were Kennedy, Roosevelt, Rockefeller, Harrison, Frelinghuysen, Adams, Bush, Breckingridge, Taft, Bayard.

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0322/America-s-to...

[raverbashing]

Yes, but I read it as referring to 2 people, sorry

[majewsky]

That wasn't my point. I'm not saying that all oligarchs are in line with current policy. In fact, quite the opposite: Trump is clearly an oligarch, and Sanders is at least upper class.

[return0]

Obama was an "outsider". It's been a while since campaigns are not won by just money. My theory is the rich elites don't want to wield their power through governments anymore.

[cheez]

Obama raised more than any president in history from what I understand.

[return0]

Not by elite donors though. As I understand, it was donations from a very large user base: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_camp...

The campaign raised much of its cash in small donations over the internet, with about half of its intake coming in increments of less than $200.[53] Both major party campaigns screened regularly for patterns of abuse and returned or rejected donations in excess of legal limits, from overseas, from untraceable addresses, or from fraudulent names

and his second campaign had 3 times larger user base.

[bko]

He was such an overwhelming favorite by the end which is what I believe fueled his donations. No point in funding a loser.

[threeseed]

Also was the Big Data candidate: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/opinion/beware-the-big-dat...