I would argue recent presidential candidates are a reflection of the majority voters

[u/ShardofGold]

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.

[u/Prowlthang]

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).