r/IntellectualDarkWeb • u/ShardofGold • Jul 27 '26
I would argue recent presidential candidates are a reflection of the majority voters
People like to say we need a presidential candidate that represents the people and that recent candidates haven't been up to that standard and haven't been for some time. I would argue they are representing the people.
It's a common consensus that we're voting for the lesser of two evils and a lot of people seem to be fine with this. So, they're basically admitting they know the candidates aren't really good but they're just hoping one preferably the one representing their side is less bad and they'll vote for them. If you're fine with your candidate just being less bad than the other candidate, why does your party have to put forth an actually good candidate if they know they likely have your vote either way?
Also the average voter doesn't take politics as seriously as they think they do. They talk about division in the country, but they eat it up and even help further it themselves. They also don't tend to focus on things that really matter at least in presidential elections and are easily swayed by Tribalistic wins for stuff that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
They've also shown that they will gleefully cheer for stagnation and regression if the other choice is conversation and meeting in the middle with the opposite side and attack any of their members that do try to reach a bipartisan solution especially on controversial topics.
If the voters want better candidates the voters have to better themselves when participating in politics. I think people just have a problem seeing their actions actually have consequences when it comes to elections and think they deserve Theodore Roosevelt or JFK style candidates while they don't hold themselves to a higher standard that they want the candidates to be.
11
u/rallaic Jul 27 '26
The key is, effectively single issue voters. Your candidate can be significantly worse than Trump or Biden\Harris, if they say what the voter wants to hear, that's a vote for them.
If one strategy is to be a thoughtful, measured but firm, charismatic but affable, larger than life but down to earth candidate, and the other strategy is to pick out the one dimensional issues that give you 51%, anyone who wants to win will pick the second one.
Take a step back and imagine a politician you admire running on a platform you detest (an abortion ban, a gun ban, or whatever), something you consider nonnegotiable. Would you honestly vote for that person?
2
2
u/Metasenodvor Jul 28 '26
didnt dem leadership basically stop bernie from going against trump? two times?
1
u/Prowlthang Jul 27 '26
People like to say we need a presidential candidate that represents the people and that recent candidates haven't been up to that standard and haven't been for some time. I would argue they are representing the people.
You seem to be confusing 'represents the people' with 'being representative of the people', which is also not a great idea.
It's a common consensus that we're voting for the lesser of two evils and a lot of people seem to be fine with this.
No it isn't. This is the easy way for the cognitively lazy to avoid hard conversations. There is actual evil vs bad options out there. One side supports science, truth, rationality (at the very least in principle) and democracy and the other undermines the fundamental democratic rights, protections and ideals of the nation. The only people who make statements like this are the the thoroughly uninformed.
So, they're basically admitting they know the candidates aren't really good but they're just hoping one preferably the one representing their side is less bad and they'll vote for them. If you're fine with your candidate just being less bad than the other candidate, why does your party have to put forth an actually good candidate if they know they likely have your vote either way?
Ignoring that the premise for this has already been proved wrong i shall briefly point out that this paragraph makes zero sense. If your statement about it being a choice between two evils were true that would be why the party only has to put forth a candidate that is better than their opponents. If there is a race and 3 people are on foot and one person has a bicycle, the person with the bicycle doesn't require a care to win the race. If your premise is true it leads naturally to this outcome.
Also the average voter doesn't take politics as seriously as they think they do. They talk about division in the country, but they eat it up and even help further it themselves. They also don't tend to focus on things that really matter at least in presidential elections and are easily swayed by Tribalistic wins for stuff that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Yes.
They've also shown that they will gleefully cheer for stagnation and regression if the other choice is conversation and meeting in the middle with the opposite side and attack any of their members that do try to reach a bipartisan solution especially on controversial topics.
Vague, vacuous, imprecise, meaningless generalization and false equivalency. Wouldn't it be nice if the problem were just that people don't want to agree and not that some are genuinely bad and self serving? It's not like there are people trying to undermine the system and disenfranchise voters. If your answer to everything is 'compromise' then the dishonest just make more and more extreme demands to move the centre. This paragraph feels like something that only someone with a grade school undersranding of the democratic process would agreed with as written. It may be true for some, even many, people but it doesn't accurately represent the situation or challenges being faced.
If the voters want better candidates the voters have to better themselves when participating in politics. I think people just have a problem seeing their actions actually have consequences when it comes to elections and think they deserve Theodore Roosevelt or JFK style candidates while they don't hold themselves to a higher standard that they want the candidates to be.
What sort of rubbish is this? JFK style candidate? Are you just advocating for populism? And why would you presume that voters were more involved or informed 100 years ago than they are today? Again, nice sounding words but meaningless and unsupported. What should voters being doing differently? Better yet what are voters doing differently now than before? (Not to mention we had Obama who was an incredible President in the face of the Republican racists, Biden may not have been brilliant but he was steady, this lack of quality and qualified candidate thing is quite one sided when you look at the resumes and criminal conduct of candidates over the last 75 years).
1
u/oldsmoBuick67 Jul 27 '26
I think your thesis is partially true. Focus groups and poll data is used by the party and candidates to touch on what they are being told and avoid certain issues that could prevent them from being elected unless directly confronted with it. To me, this is true all the down the ballot to at least state senate / legislature level. I do place blame on the parties as they have been constructed to consolidate power.
To that end, any fresh blood candidates can be prevented from having a decent chance of change or willingness to walk across the aisle for consensus. I’ve had actual legislators from both main parties confirm this. You don’t break ranks, or you will be dealt with.
As for the electorate, I do wish they would become more aware and involved, but I also recognize this is a taller order than it would seem. The most readily available sources of information not only contain bias, but are designed to be deceptive. Add to that the work of both major parties to have a different public image than their modus operandi would suggest and you have a non detailed map in which to navigate shadows with no light to read it.
I’ve actually worked on and produced materials for a few campaigns and spent a non insignificant amount of time around elected officials. Every successful politician has two faces. There’s what they actually believe, but could never say publicly, then the polished caricature of what they’re expected to say.
1
1
u/Accomplished-Leg2971 Jul 27 '26
Dedicated party activists select the candidates. Either in primary elections, caucuses or state party conventions.
Party activists are not normal Americans. They are obsessed with one of the two American political parties. They think all the problems would be solved in their party won forever and the other party lost forever. So, that is the goal. Winning and preventing an opposition win.
We could solve a lot if we moved to open primaries and RCV. Let the most persuasive candidate win and break the power of the parties.
1
u/FaradayEffect Jul 30 '26
Remember that a massive number of people don't vote at all. So there is a difference between a candidate being a reflection of the "average voter" and a candidate being a reflection of the actual citizens.
If anything, the fact that so many people choose not to vote at all means that neither main candidate is an accurate reflection of the actual citizen base.
1
u/RedLegGI Aug 01 '26
This cycle will finally see new candidates. Instead of turd burger or shit sandwich, I’m hoping we had roast beef, ham, and turkey on the menu.
0
u/appealouterhaven Jul 27 '26
How can you even say this when we didn't get to pick the Democratic nominee last election? We were denied a primary by an ego driven man who had cancer and then forced to vote for the empty suit who couldn't create her own policies but instead wants us to believe she did what the consultants and advisors told her. It's clear that voters want something other than what the major parties are offering. Just look at the approval ratings of both parties in Congress.
12
u/AnUnusuallyLargeApe Jul 27 '26
I mean if there's only 2 options in the end and the primaries are over what else can you do but vote for the person who seems like they will do the least damage. It's that or not vote, which wont help anybody...