Experience and "character" don't mean jack to voters, so it's really issues?

Politics & Elections
1

Upon reflection I think it’s safe to say that voters do not give a damn about experience or character when it comes to who they support.

These things are often brought up by people but they smack me as the kinds of post hoc arguments people toss out after their animal brain has already decided based on their gut intuitions and preferences.

Obama was infinitely less experienced than McCain, and he blew McCain out. Now most of that was the anti republican wave after Iraq, the financial crash and Bush, but it’s still an example where experience meant jack. Trump had no political experience, no one cared. Hillary had far more political experience, and again, no one cared in certain states.
Character. Remember Bill Clinton? His male slut actions were exposed for the world to see, and at the end of the day, he was more popular at the end of his presidency than when he came in because people did not care about his personal infidelity. Same with Trump, this was a foul mouthed lout who was exposed for grabbing women by the p*ssy (his claim, not mine), and no one cared about that.
You know what they DID care about? Trump was going to make America GREAT again, he was going to bring back jobs, more coal jobs, more factory jobs, he alone can make it all right. Was this true? Did he really have a plan? Doubtful, I think it was a fairly obvious con job from a master con man, but the rubes ate it up. And here is the key, whether his proclamations were plausible or not, it was still tangentially related to issues and where he wanted to take the country.

Hillary and her campaign focused too much on Trumps character, the media focused too much on Trumps character, and we need to FINALLY have that focus DIE once and for all because no one, NO ONE gives a damn about character. Trump was the father of lies who shot them out faster and more egregiously than any other politician in the modern era, and it did not matter. Hillary did have substance, but it did not connect to the people it needed to connect to in the swing states. She had no clear message for those people at the right moments like the debates where all eyes were on her.
Bernie did, he did not give a crap about the fluff, he tossed aside questions about Hillarys emails during his debate with her. And remember this gem?

NO one thought Bernie came across as someone who just wanted to utter the right platitudes. He came across as a true believer, even for people that thought his ideas were over the top and insane.

So the lesson for the future of politics? Be precise in your criticism in the era of Trump, dial back the character issues because no one gives a shit, least of all the people who put him in office and are biologically engineered to ignore negative aspects of the choice they just made (as are we all). And focus on specific issues where he has fallen short. And for gods sakes, whoever we run in 2020, make sure they do the same.

2

No it’s apparently neither experience nor character nor issues: it’s about successfully pushing emotional buttons in people.

3

Or it’s even simpler in that the person making the biggest promises wins.

4

Hmmm. Yes, buttons. OK, so I reckon the imaginary ideal President stereotypically needs to be a strong male figure who will protect us from the evils that we fear.

So, for me, that’s Arnold Schwarzenegger, apparently. :smack:

For some people, that’s a rich white man with common tastes (“Trump eats fast food! Like me! <3”) who will save us from Muslims, Mexicans, and the ambiguously brown foreigner in general.

But for Democrats, you’d go a little different:

Say, a Denzel Washington type who will stand up to the KuKluxers and the killer cops. (Killer Kukluxer Kops?)

On reflection, let’s revise the standard: A strong [del]male[/del] quasi-virile figure who will protect us from the evils that we fear. I say quasi-virile, because it ties into both idealized “husband” and “father” traits, but merely being male is not enough. Tim Kaine seems like he might be an OK husband, but he’s not the Mighty Protector.

Oh, the concept I’m looking for is courage, or the appearance of it, or something like it.

And here’s where the opportunity for subversion comes in. Maybe, bear with me here, the Dems could nominate Tulsi Gabbard. War veteran, who stood up to Hillary Clinton to defend service personnel. She’s a* woman *who has courage. (Then again, I’m clearly biased here. The typical American is both less a Wonder Woman fan and less a Krishna fan than I am, and they might not click with her appearance and religion in the same way.)

Now, Tammy Duckworth has courage, but I don’t know if she projects strength in the same way.

Hm.

No, I’ve gotten off track. We’re looking for a Big Man. Ein “Karl der Groot.”

5

But also lovable and beloved. But also fearsome in justice. C’mon, this is like page 1-3 of The Prince! I know this!

6

You’re allowed to vote for someone for any reason.

You’ll never be able to quantify who votes for what reason by asking them, because people are full of shit.

7

Actually, hasn’t the taller candidate won nearly every time?

8

I think James Madison was pretty short.

9

Character and experience only matter when your preferred candidate has both character and experience. When the candidate you oppose has these qualities they don’t *much *matter. This may not go for all voters but it’s true for the vast majority of voters.

10

I don’t think you showed that character doesn’t matter, only that different factions have differing opinions on who has good character. Many if not most Trump supporters think he has better character than Clinton.

11

As others have said, it’s not experience, character, or issues. It’s image.

12

Like Ronald Reagan, maybe? :wink: A lot of people here are too young to remember him as a movie star.

In the USA this will never be a woman. I can see that now. Americans (in the aggregate) are [del]afraid[/del] terrified of and angry at strong women. Reminds them of authoritarian mommy. Remember how many people, even on this board, said listening to Hillary reminded them of being lectured/scolded by their third grade teacher?

Doesn’t count. That was before TV.

13

I think Americans would vote for a folksy woman with disarming charm, someone like Ann Richards, or if Sarah Palin were coherent.

14

Actually many Trump voters when questioned as to why they voted as they did answered that the Supreme Court was at the top of the list. This makes sense as the makeup of SCOTUS in the coming years will very much determine what sort of place America will be.

15

[QUOTE=marshmallow]
I think Americans would vote for a folksy woman with disarming charm, someone like Ann Richards, or if Sarah Palin were coherent.
[/QUOTE]

And yet, Americans did vote for Hillary Clinton, basically at Obama’s 2012 levels. A certain electorally-important sector of voters thinks the way you describe, but certainly not “Americans” as a whole.

16

I don’t understand this need to reduce the result of this election down to one and only one cause. Not only is it much more likely that there are multiple causes, but it’s also likely that this suite of causes is not the same every elections cycle. There are probably common themes (it IS the economy, stupid) that run through most elections, be each cycle brings its own unique dynamic. A dynamic that is not independent of the particular folks running, too. Not to mention a certain amount of luck.

17

Yes, this. A well-qualified woman with a good platform will always have a good chance with one chunk of the electorate, while having zero chance with a different chunk of the electorate.

We’re all humans who are subject to behaving (e.g. voting) according to non-rational criteria–criteria of which we may not even be conscious. But some are more non-rational than others. Some will always be ruled by the need to identify with a Strong White Man and some will feel few or no impulses in that direction.

The trick is to come up with a candidate who will appeal to the more-rational folks (via positions taken, experience and character) while also garnering votes from those who need someone to flatter them and project an image impressive to them.

18

Yes, I predicted that SCOTUS would trump other aspects of choice for many early on. After that (and other single issue voting decisions) everything else is seems to be simply justification.

Interestingly, I just spoke with someone who voted Trump because he supports right to choose; he had heard (from somewhere) that HRC was going to install SCOTUS justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. :smack: Score one for SCOTUS priority with the win going to fake news!

19

Shaquille O’Neal for president? I could see that.

20

I disagree. The UK voted in Margaret Thatcher 3 times, the Germans about the same number of times with Angela Merkel. Both are examples of strong women. I can virtually guarantee Americans as a whole do not have substantially different views on strong women as Germans or Brits.