First of all, it is perfectly alright to point out that a candidate is wealthy and imply or actually state that because of that factor they should not be elected because they are “out of touch”, “don’t get it (whatever it is)” or will do things only for other rich people. However, the electorate is not dumb.
There are successful politicians on both sides of the isle that had personal wealth. JFK, FDR, John Kerry, John Edwards, Jay Rockefeller. George Bush, Mitt Romney, Nelson Rockefeller. (P.S. I think Obama is now a millionaire in his own right as a result of his books.)
I believe the average voter does not consider personal wealth a reason to not vote for a candidate. To the contrary, I think the average voter is actually comforted if the candidate has personal wealth because he or she (1) doesn’t need to get elected or more importantly re-elected in order to provide for his family, (2) is less susceptible to bribes or favors and (3) probably is in politics because they want to be not in order to make money!
And anyone who thinks the average American resents wealth or super wealth, think about the number of sports fans who pay good money for tickets or watch professional sports for entertainment. They know perfectly good and well the athletes they are watching a multi-millionaires. If the average American disliked those with disproportionate wealth, they would boycotted athletic events…..by gosh they certainly don’t do that.
Bottom line? People in America don’t vote against millionaires just because they are millionaires.