|
Democratic elections are, by definition, popularity contests. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ok, I agree, but not with much posted on this side. Yes, elections are popularity contests. Yes,
that is EXACTLY what they are supposed to be. That is why each side has primaries to determine who
is best qualified AND who will the people like the most. It is politics. It is nothing but a game.
That is exactly how it should be! If people ever really get fed up with poor leadership, that
leader becomes unpopular. That is the opposite of a good strategy when trying to get elected.
If people want to whine about how politicians never back up their campaign promises, STOP VOTING FOR
THEM. It's not like there are only going to be two names running for president this year. You will
have multiple options for senate and congress as well. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
A candidate promises anything and says everything you want to hear just to get you to like them. It
isn't about what this persons qualifications are, it is about who people like more. It is a
popularity thing. I know so many people who said they listened to Bush and really believed that he
was for the families and they liked how he acted in the public eye, plus his dad had been President,
so they voted for him. What a horrible mistake! People need to learn to look a little deeper before
deciding who will run this country because you see what happens when they don't. War, bad economy,
high prices, horrible health insurance coverage for seniors, etc. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Almost all elections are a popularity vote. Due to the fact that most candidates won't even bother
to fulfill their promises when they are elected. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes,i think so. The nicest guy always gets in. John Kerry, is a very unlikeable person (lots of
experience with this one, so trust me). It has become a matter of gaining the popular or populist
vote. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SADLY, THEY ARE.
This Democrat Party election shows that so well. A high percentage of Democrats and Independents
supported Hillary BECAUSE OF HER PLANNED PROGRAMS AND CHANGES THAT WOULD MAKE A POWERFUL DIFFERENCE
IN DOMESTIC ISSUES AND AMERICA'S STANDING IN THE WORLD. They saw the needs and they saw the logic
and planning of what to do, and they respected her, her intelligence and her experience.
Then, along came a politically well-groomed, inspirational Barack Obama who adopted her proposed
changes and improvements for America.
Then, hypocritically, they changed their vote to personality, not issues. They changed to support
him because he reminded them of Martin Luther King, was handsome, dressed impeccable, spoke with
inspiration and hope, had very little government and administrative experience, smiled a lot, was
'every mother's son" and was/is a totally wonderful man.
Suddenly, American voters forgot about Hillary and that she was the number one candidate who could
respond to make the changes that America needs. They liked the personality of Barack better. They
liked his clothing better. They liked acting like girls at Elvis's Performances with their yelling,
throwing kisses, hugging, jumping up and down. Even Ted Kennedy and other Kennedy's were just the
same...HIS SUPPORT SPEECH WAS TOTALLY BASED ON PERSONALITY, TOTALLY. (He demeaned Bill Clinton's
personality when Bill did just the same as Kennedy's realities did to elect him in spite of his
personal immorality that killed a young girl during an overnight stand)
Those that had been on Hillary's pre-Obama bandwagon started making fun of and cruising her
clothing, her moment of tearful positive emotion, her voice, how she laughed. Sadly, Personality is
the main issue.
Look at the Carter election. Personality was the key and the Christians wanted him in because he had
a soft and sincere Christian personality. He was and is a truly good man. But, the voters did not
give him a Congress that would support him.
Look at Ronnie Reagan. His personality continues to be the first thing mentioned when he is spoken
about. That's all that most know about him: "The Great Communicator".
Stupid people vote ONLY on personality when America needs strength and experience.
From what I've heard personal good friends of Hillary say, I wish she was my good friend so we could
just laugh and talk seriously and shed a tear of comfort together. I see that personality in her
every time the media gives her a moment to speak (very little compared with Barack and they often
use moments of negative statements on policy or has a sort of negative look on her fact........for
Obama, they show wonderful pictures and CNN even let him give a 15 minute speech during the high
point of super Tuesday while giving her 3 minutes!!!........that was BEFORE the west coast polls
closed.
YES, PERSONALITY IS VOTED FOR FAR MORE THAT ABILITY, KNOWLEDGE, AND EXPERIENCE. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
As it comes to the matter of my point of view, I am completely agreed to the point that the US
elections are nothing but just a contest for proving anyone’s popularity. It has become the
showing field of that how much a person is likeable to the general mass. Nowadays in US the
intellectual analysis or a serious political capability is not the fact to be considered. It gives
the least effect to the ballots and the ultimate craze of the candidate taken to the concern. It is
not at all granted in contemplation that how much the aspirant would be fruitful to the service for
the country. And it has been proved every time that the elected person always forgets to do what
they usually promise just before the election. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, it's very obvious. Imagine,an actor can be president in us |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Its just a long bring farce |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes. It's regrettable but elections, and not just in the United States, seem to be largely
popularity contests based on how likeable a person is. Serious intellectual analysis or approval of
policy issues has only a marginal effect on anything.
Witness the shifts in British politics in recent years. The new Conservative leader David Cameron
gave his party a massive fillip right away. No one really knew anything about him or what his
policies were. But he seemed like a decent bloke - and that was apparently enough for many voters.
Look at the Labour party's recent dip in fortunes since Gordon Brown took over. Has anything really
changed from the Blair era? Nothing substantive and what has changed is probably an improvement. But
he lacks the personal charisma of Blair so his party's poll-ratings have nose-dived.
It's a sad commentary on the intellectual shallowness of our society. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree with this. How many times have we sat and listened to Presidential candidates promise to do
things and when they get into office, they never do anything they promised. I agree that it is all
talk and no action. It would be great if they actually did do something, but they won't. They never
do. It is all matter of who is the most popular candidate. It is a big popularity contest. Very high
schoolish. It is about time that the candidates be held to their promises. If they can't keep them,
them impeach them. It is that simple. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
As oppose to the best person sadly the best person for the job may not be the most popular |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Our nation is a democracy and will aways be. This is how it was meant to be. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Although elections certainly have a lot to do with popularity, they are not normally as devoid of
substance and content as traditional contests focusing on nothing more than someone popularity with
a given audience. After all, for a politician to be popular, he/she must offer something that
appeals to voters. This may include charisma (witness Barack Obama's successful campaign), a level
of comfort and trust that comes with experience (queue Hillary Clinton) and convincing policy
proposals that citizens find meaningful in their everyday lives. It takes skills, intelligence and
good strategy to win an election in the US, or elsewhere. Pure popularity contests, however, require
none of these.
Whether elected officials actually keep their promises is another matter altogether. Many don't, but
in most cases this will eventually catch up with them and they, or their party will one day pay a
political price. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No it isn't its also how good u are at making people agree with u |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
30 Jan 2008 20:41
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
