Why do we spend waaay more time debating superficial issues about candidates, rather than debating where they stand on the real issues?

John Edwards is a phony.
Mitt Romney's a Mormon.
John McCain is old.
Barack Obama spent time in a Muslim school when he was 4.
Rudy Giuliani has had three wives, one of whom is a cousin. And he dresses in drag every chance he gets.
Hillary is just ... Hillary.

We're talking about deciding the President of the United States! Who gives a sh!t about all this stuff and why does everyone talk about it?

Is it a by-product of a tabloid nation? I have a feeling the majority of Americans know a lot more about Paris Hilton or Tom Cruise than Ron Paul.

But is England not the Mecca of tabloids? I have no idea how seriously they take their politics.

Maybe this is not uniquely American. I don't know. People seem to be a lot more passionate about their elections in other countries.

Discuss.

It's much easier to make a determination on superficial issues than to take the time to think about the implications of a candidate's stand on geopolitical issues. That's how stupid people like GWB get into office and how people like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh stay in business.

Well, as I understand it, the Brits don't actually elect a prime minister. Imagine British politics if the general citizenry elected the PM. The multiparty system makes things much more interesting--- and I believe it tempers dirty politics, since coalitions still need to be maintained.

Why do we spend waaay more time debating superficial issues about candidates, rather than debating where they stand on the real issues?Because we're basically still electing senior class presidents. The candidate with the best skit wins.

"Vote for me and all your wildest dreams will come true."

Why do we spend waaay more time debating superficial issues about candidates, rather than debating where they stand on the real issues?


Who is "we"?

As has been said, it is a popularity contest. That is true for many voters.

We the people on the board are of course different! But most candidates are shy on the details of their policies this far out. Those develop over time. We get some "priorities" that are called plans, but the devil is in the details. I am sure the policy details will be hashed out here as candidates put forth more and more of what they actually want to do.

Here is an idea. Why not pick some policy, health care, taxes, WoT, etc. Just pick one. Then post links or pastes from the candidates on that policy question. We can then go at the issues.

But don't expect to see much in terms of developed policies from most of them on most issues.

Why do we spend waaay more time debating superficial issues about candidates, rather than debating where they stand on the real issues?

John Edwards is a phony.
Mitt Romney's a Mormon.
John McCain is old.
Barack Obama spent time in a Muslim school when he was 4.
Rudy Giuliani has had three wives, one of whom is a cousin. And he dresses in drag every chance he gets.
Hillary is just ... Hillary.

We're talking about deciding the President of the United States! Who gives a sh!t about all this stuff and why does everyone talk about it?

Is it a by-product of a tabloid nation? I have a feeling the majority of Americans know a lot more about Paris Hilton or Tom Cruise than Ron Paul.

Discuss.

You mean Ru Paul? Typo?

Why do we spend waaay more time debating superficial issues about candidates, rather than debating where they stand on the real issues?

becoz you're Americans. you can't handle the truth ... or someone has made decision to that effect, for you. like mushrooms you are fed sh1t and kept in the dark and that is very evident in your media. in fact you don't have media but rather press release agencies that take whatever is fed them verbatim.

just sayin' ....

becoz you're Americans. you can't handle the truth ... or someone has made decision to that effect, for you. like mushrooms you are fed sh1t and kept in the dark and that is very evident in your media. in fact you don't have media but rather press release agencies that take whatever is fed them verbatim.

just sayin' ....

Hate and bile.

One wonders why you still remain in a Western country except for the lifestyle that you are permitted?

becoz you're Americans. you can't handle the truth ... or someone has made decision to that effect, for you. like mushrooms you are fed sh1t and kept in the dark and that is very evident in your media. in fact you don't have media but rather press release agencies that take whatever is fed them verbatim.

just sayin' ....

It's so true!

Most Americans don't take the time to become educated on a politican's position. They are too busy trying to make their mortgage payment or being afraid of a "terrorist behind every tree." It's also partly cause they're turned off by the process. We have nearly 300 million voting public and we're lucky if one-third show up during a national election. If we want true elections, we should make it mandatory law that you have to vote in national elections. Impose a hefty fine and people will get their butts to the polls...

Our news media definitely failed us during the '00 & '04 elections, as well as during the run up to this farce of a war. They were more interested in access, ratings, and their corporate sponsors, than they were with the truth. They fell for FauxNews' "fair & balanced" lie that they thought it was more important than telling the truth and exposing the lies. Again, this was mainly because of the ratings race... They thought Faux must have been doing something right... They were fools who surrendered their watch dog responsibility and sold out this nation.

The media reports on campaigns as horse races, who's ahead, who's behind...etc. They rarely give any airtime to a candidate's issues unless he makes a major change. Even then, it's briefly reported then they go back to their horse race reporting. This is partly due to the candidate's efforts to try to control the message.

It's up to the campaign to advertise but that's when it gets dirty and they pull out the attack ads and messages get twisted. Attack ads work. They can either mobilize or suppress the base.

IMO, one of the bigger issues with our political system is campaign financing. In order to re-energize American's interest in politics we need to publicly finance ALL campaigns. We need to end the corporatization of America and return it back to a democracy!

We're are a young and stupid/arrogant nation, and hopefully we'll get it right before we really go into the shitter.

If we want true elections, we should make it mandatory law that you have to vote in national elections. Impose a hefty fine and people will get their butts to the polls...This definitely sounds like something your avatar would say. If the people don't want democracy we will force it on them, is that it? How ironic.

This definitely sounds like something your avatar would say. If the people don't want democracy we will force it on them, is that it? How ironic.

Spidie is all for authority when it suits him.

Can't figure out who to support? Use this handy online script (http://www.dehp.net/candidate/index.php). Apparently I favor Kucinich and Gravel by a wide margin. My anti-candidate is Romney.

This definitely sounds like something your avatar would say. If the people don't want democracy we will force it on them, is that it? How ironic.

Since 2/3rds of our electorate don't vote in our corporatocracy the goal seems to be to limit people from voting.

What I'm advocating is to make people fulfill their civic duty and have a true majority rule, not a rule by self-interests/corporations which is what we have today.

Perhaps Che had a chance here after all?

Since 2/3rds of our electorate don't vote in our corporatocracy the goal seems to be to limit people from voting.First of all your numbers are wrong. See http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm

2004 Voting-Age and Voting-Eligible Population Estimates and Voter Turnout

United States: 60.93%

While it would be nice to have greater turnout, you are greatly exaggerating the problem. And frankly, the people who can't be bothered to vote also can't be bothered to pay real attention to the candidates. Do you really want those people voting? If you think it's a popularity contest now, just wait until we start counting the votes of the politically ignorant, too.

Since 2/3rds of our electorate don't vote in our corporatocracy the goal seems to be to limit people from voting.

What I'm advocating is to make people fulfill their civic duty and have a true majority rule, not a rule by self-interests/corporations which is what we have today.

Perhaps Che had a chance here after all?
People can vote, the problem is that people don't make the minor effort to do so.

If you have to force people fulfill their role, you've already lost the war.

Finally, Che had no chance here. There's no revolution to be had in the United States.

First of all your numbers are wrong. See http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm

2004 Voting-Age and Voting-Eligible Population Estimates and Voter Turnout

United States: 60.93%

While it would be nice to have greater turnout, you are greatly exaggerating the problem. And frankly, the people who can't be bothered to vote also can't be bothered to pay real attention to the candidates. Do you really want those people voting? If you think it's a popularity contest now, just wait until we start counting the votes of the politically ignorant, too.

Hey now, my vote counts just like yours does. :)

Hey now, my vote counts just like yours does. :)See? That's my point. If Snake stays home on election day to watch "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader" that's alright with me :thumbsup:

First of all your numbers are wrong. See http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm

2004 Voting-Age and Voting-Eligible Population Estimates and Voter Turnout

United States: 60.93%

While it would be nice to have greater turnout, you are greatly exaggerating the problem. And frankly, the people who can't be bothered to vote also can't be bothered to pay real attention to the candidates. Do you really want those people voting? If you think it's a popularity contest now, just wait until we start counting the votes of the politically ignorant, too.


we don't have 300 million voters in this country...about 1/5 of the populace are under the age of 18...a few million more are not able to vote for whatever reason (disability, citizenship, etc)...a few ten million more don't even care to register.

its sad yes, but I think if a national system of cast by mail voting were implemented, those numbers would probably go higher than 61% of the potential voting public...
Oregon has been doing mail ballots for a few years now and has pretty good voter turn out when it matters...

First of all your numbers are wrong. See http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm

2004 Voting-Age and Voting-Eligible Population Estimates and Voter Turnout

United States: 60.93%

While it would be nice to have greater turnout, you are greatly exaggerating the problem. And frankly, the people who can't be bothered to vote also can't be bothered to pay real attention to the candidates. Do you really want those people voting? If you think it's a popularity contest now, just wait until we start counting the votes of the politically ignorant, too.

Sure, my numbers weren't intended to be exact... and 61% is much better than my assumed 33%.

We already have an ignorant electorate, but some info does get through. And party affiliation, party line voting, also makes choices a little easier.

Yes, having a 100% turnout would eliminate campaign tampering like "voter caging...etc." which does have an influence on close elections.

But don't expect to see much in terms of developed policies from most of them on most issues. This is as big of an issue as general apathy from the public (and pretty much tied to it).

In all but a few cases, politicians in the US can't HAVE a strong policy about important issues. Because taking a stance means alienating the voters who disagree with that stance.

So, if I take a strong stance on stem cells, on abortion, on the war --> each one has the effect of whittling away people who disagree with me on that particular issue until suddenly I have no voters.

Being vague on most issues is the way to office. Even with the war, listen to the politicians -- public opinion has most of them talking about ways to get the troops home, but they're generally still vague about how and when. leaving themselves outs & leeway.

Oregon has been doing mail ballots for a few years now and has pretty good voter turn out when it matters...I am an Oregon voter and I like the system here a lot. Most obviously it negates common excuses for non-voting; I'm sure my wife, for example, would never vote if it meant leaving her high-tempo job to visit a polling station. Vote-by-mail makes big $$$$ advertising less important because voting occurs over a span of weeks rather than hours. And it makes me a better voter. I try to keep up on issues and news but it's impossible to follow everything. If I come across a name or issue on my ballot that I don't recognize, and can spend some time researching before casting my vote.

That said, vote-by-mail is not a panacea. Oregon has higher than average turnout (~70% in 2004) but other states are still higher.

increasing voter turnout would be good.

improving the quality of candidates on the ballot would be better.

Why do we spend waaay more time debating superficial issues about candidates, rather than debating where they stand on the real issues? ... Discuss.

Good question. I was assuming Mitt Romney would be a nonstarter because he is so transparently reinventing his positions on issues to fit what's expected for a national GOP candidate platform.

But now I think maybe he's a contender. Let's see:

His good looks ("presidential" looking) and attractive "traditional" family make people comfortable on a superficial level. So people seem to be willing to give him a free pass on the whole making-up-new-positions-on-the-issues thing. It's like people are saying, He may not be an actual (fill in the blank), but he can play one on TV. (No disrespect to Fred T. - that's another matter)

Also, he has a lot of personal wealth to fund his campaign.

Also, as a local he will clean up in the GOP NH primary.

I am starting to think he will go far.