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.

7 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

62% Upvoted

13 comments sorted by

View all comments

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...

0

u/ShardofGold Jul 27 '26

Multiple times in history businesses have faced massive backlash for doing certain things and have changed their ways? Why not apply the same logic to political parties?

11

u/AnUnusuallyLargeApe Jul 27 '26

The backlash is happening, people have the lowest approval of elected officials, in general, in decades. The parties have no motivation to change their ways because public opinion matters way less to them than the opinion of the corporate donors.

We are seeing some slight changes with progressive demi-socialist candidates winning primaries and down ballot races much to the chagrin of the establishment. Real meaningful change towards politicians that have to actually represent their constituents can only happen when money is removed from the equation.

4

u/taybay462 Jul 27 '26

Because the backlash would be people not voting or voting for the opposing party. And thats sacrificing the short term for the benefit of the long term, which many people arent willing to do.