FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
If you go to the race track, do you bet your money on a three-legged horse? No – you bet your money on a four-legged horse that has a chance of winning the race.
So why is it when it comes to politics some people insist on betting on horses that have no chance of winning?
Several of the Republican presidential wannabes are raking in loads of campaign cash despite the fact that they have virtually no chance of being the nominee.
Rick Santorum, who came close to defeating Mitt Romney in Iowa, has raised more than $1 million since the caucuses Tuesday.
Yes, Santorum placed a very close second in Iowa, but that was largely due to his appeal among social conservatives and evangelicals. And that's not something that will translate in many of the upcoming races. He stands to lose badly in New Hampshire.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul raised an impressive $13 million in the last three months. That tops the $8 million he raised in the previous quarter. Paul has a passionate group of supporters. He, too, ran well in Iowa, but again, chances are he won't be the Republican nominee.
Newt Gingrich also raised $10 million in the last quarter, but some of that came when he was spiking in the polls. And that is now history.
Of course, none of these compare to Romney's expected haul of $20 million in the last three months.
But that's the thing, you can understand why people might plunk their money down on Romney to win.
Romney is looking more and more like the party's nominee every day. He is expected to win by a landslide in New Hampshire, and it seems unlikely at this point that there is anyone – or anything – that can stop him.
Here’s my question to you: Why do people give money to candidates who have no chance of winning?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Annie in Atlanta:
Stupidity and ignorance. And there certainly are people out there who know how to take advantage of a good thing when they see it. How much is Palin worth now? What a racket.
Richard in Texas:
They are wishful thinkers, and they believe that if enough people think like they do then their candidate might have a shot. They surely wouldn't go far without donations now would they? Poor people do not run for president and usually the one with the most money wins–not the best candidate.
T. in Oklahoma:
Because they can. I donate to anyone whose views match mine, regardless of the state they live in. It is so they can be given a platform.
Janet in Oregon:
I would guess it's the same reason people sit in front of their televisions writing 'seed money' checks to televangelists. They aren't using their brains! They are expecting their donations will create 'miracles'. With just a little use of their available thought processes, they would realize that they are merely helping the rich get richer, and in no way are they helping themselves.
I am not entirely sure, but if we look at what is happening with Santorum, they are doing it with the hope that he gains on the front-runner. Additionally, it is a way to feel empowered beyond the voting box to fortify your beliefs and support those that are of like mind.
Jeffrey in Toledo, Ohio:
I've done this myself a few times - usually because "None of the Above" is not a ballot option.