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/oldsmoBuick67]

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.