In theory, we could have candidate could allege to be for less wealth redistribution but who ends up promoting policies that result in a boom-bust business cycle, the bust side of which causes vast fortunes to disappear. We could also have a candidate who alleges to be for greater wealth redistribution but is basically just saying that to win votes, and once in office will understand the landscape and play nice with all manner of banks, corporations, and interest groups, as a way of maintaining relative political peace and stability.Incorrect. If left to only two viable choices, I will pick the one that is for less wealth redistribution and government control, though.
The rich got way, way richer under both Clinton and Obama, all their public statements as to inequality notwithstanding. There was also some considerable indication that the regulations on banks under Obama were mostly illusory, that the administration wanted to keep up pretenses that there was harsh regulation, but the actual orders were to mostly defer. Deep red conservatives will always repeat the meme that Obama was a redistributionist, but this just indicates they're too lazy to pay attention to what his administration actually did.
All of that is to say, best not to just take politicians' word for it, the devil's in the details and sometimes you have to sort of read between the lines.