When will the United States stop giving a rat's ass about who they elect?

[Mechaman]

I mean really, when will the race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, eating habits, smoking habits, drinking habits, favorite sports teams, etc. of the candidates running for president not matter anymore to the American people?
In other words, when will America stop being like "OH NOES WE CAN'T ELECT THAT DUDE/CHICK BECAUSE THEY HATE MURICAH CAUSE THEY ARE (INSERT SOMETHING PEOPLE DON'T LIKE)!" or "OH MY GOODNESS YOU SHOULD TOTALLY VOTE FOR THIS PERSON BECAUSE THEY ARE A (INSERT SOMETHING THAT RELEASES THE MAJORITY GUILT OUT OF PEOPLE) AND IF THEY WIN WE WON'T FEEL LIKE BACKASSWARDS HICKBILLYS WHO FAWK OUR SISTERS!"

So, when the hell will this happen?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The people of the United States clearly don't give a rat's ass about who they elect.

[SvenssonRS]

I have to agree with the troll above me.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I have to agree with the troll above me.

Mechaman is not a troll.

[Mechaman]

The people of the United States clearly don't give a rat's ass about who they elect.

Okay, true.
What I'm talking about is stupid non-political issues. The people are so obsessed with image that they will elect people who spend like drunkards and send American men and women by the thousands to die in useless wars just because of that image.  What I'm wondering is when will the people stop giving a flying sh*t about image and start examining the real issues?  Did the American people ever give a damn about the issues or has every election since time immemorial been about image?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The people of the United States clearly don't give a rat's ass about who they elect.

Okay, true.
What I'm talking about is stupid non-political issues. The people are so obsessed with image that they will elect people who spend like drunkards and send American men and women by the thousands to die in useless wars just because of that image.  What I'm wondering is when will the people stop giving a flying sh*t about image and start examining the real issues?  Did the American people ever give a damn about the issues or has every election since time immemorial been about image?

They won't. People are stupid.

Take campaign ads for example. Candidates spend millions of dollars on advertisements that are pretty much guaranteed to influence the outcome of the election. But I personally have never seen a single ad that would convince me to vote for one candidate or another. It is mind-boggling to me that people would actually decide who to vote for based on whose generic TV commercial they saw more often.

[SPC]

Democracy basically ensures that the lowest common denominator will be the key demographic needed to win elections, so I'd say that it is next to impossible.

[k-onmmunist]

After they've elected a dead man.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

image and identity politics have always played a large role in elections, in every part of the world, because this is more accessible to people than having to think through and weigh the merits of every issue.
if presidential powers were fewer and clearly understood, maybe that would help a bit.

[Bo]

After they've elected a dead man.

Mel Carnahan?

[feeblepizza]

I'd say that happened already, around 1992.

[Derek]

That was in 2008.

[memphis]

We're pretty much there. We have a female Speaker of the House, and we nearly had a woman president I live in a Voting Rights Act mandated majority black district where the white incumbant overwhelmingly beats back a primary from a black candidate every two years. Louisiana, of all places, has an Indian governor and a Vietnamese Congressman. The media will continue to point to all the statistical firsts, but that's pretty much all they are. Very impressive considering what a big deal it was in 1960 that JFK was <gasp> a Catholic. The only groups that are really at an innate disadvantage are Muslims, atheists, and gays. And even there we're seeing progress that was unthinkable just a few years ago (Ellis, Stark, and Polis respectively.)

[Dgov]

It Depends on what you mean.  If you mean when people stop thinking about the race, religion, ethnicity, etc. of a candidate when deciding their vote, that's stopped being a significant factor in national politics.  I mean, you can't get much better symbolically than having a Black man beat out Strom Thurmond's son in a Republican primary in a heavily white district with about 2/3rds  of the vote.  It's not all gone, but it's at a point where it's

But will people stop talking about it?  Of course not.  Two reasons--it gives "strategists" something to talk about to make themselves look important, and more significantly, it gives the parties excuses for why they perform so poorly amoung certain demographics.  I can't remember how many times I've heard a Democrat claim that the reason they do terribly among Southern Whites is because they're all racist Klan members who still burn crosses ever night, rather than pointing out the much higher levels of Church attendance and the extensive culture of being wary of government control.  These are the descendants of the people who tried to secede from a Federal government they thought was being too controlling . . . in 1860.

It works both ways too, many Republicans blame "racism" for why Blacks (and to a lesser extent, Hispanics) vote Dem.  No one ever mentions that the GOP has made little to no attempts to actively court the black vote, one time (on the campaign i worked for) even going so far as to deliberately try to avoid them.  Is there any doubt as to why Blacks support the Democrats if the Republicans don't even bother to show up?  All you get is circular logic--they aren't going to support us, so why should we campaign there, and then they don't support you.

Though I'll bet there will always be some sort of baseball statistics in play.  I can't wait until we get to hear the media tell us about our first minority representative from (INSERT 75% OF ALL DISTRICTS HERE), or our first, say, Female Chinese Republican with no fashion sense from Nebraska or something like that. 

In the (reversed) words of Morgan Freeman--I'm going to stop calling you a black man, and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a white man.  That will be when racism ends in America

[Bo]

In 2000, many people didn't really care who won and were indifferent to the election results. Despite the fact that we had a good economy, a surplus, and no foreign wars, many voters said "Gore and Bush are too similar. Not much will change if either one of them wins." Man, were those voters wrong.

[Zarn]

The biggest difference between those two would have been that Gore would have planted a tree on Arbor Day.

[Mechaman]

The biggest difference between those two would have been that Gore would have planted a tree on Arbor Day.

^^^^^^^^
This.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

In 2000, many people didn't really care who won and were indifferent to the election results. Despite the fact that we had a good economy, a surplus, and no foreign wars, many voters said "Gore and Bush are too similar. Not much will change if either one of them wins." Man, were those voters wrong.

No, they were very much correct.


Bush = Gore

Bush = Kerry

McCain = Obama

[Vepres]

10:32:23 AM on February 4, 2015

[Pope Emoviolence Fluttershy II]

The biggest difference between those two would have been that Gore would have planted a tree on Arbor Day.

You think Gore would have taken us to Iraq?

[Bo]

The biggest difference between those two would have been that Gore would have planted a tree on Arbor Day.

You think Gore would have taken us to Iraq?

No. I also don't think Gore would have spent as much or as recklessly as Bush did and thus we would have had a smaller deficit and debt right now.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Finding petty reasons to oppose a candidate is a fundamental facet of our political system.

[SPC]

The biggest difference between those two would have been that Gore would have planted a tree on Arbor Day.

You think Gore would have taken us to Iraq?

Gore did criticize Bush Sr. for not going into Baghdad. I suspect his 2003 "opposition" was motivated more by spite than ideological conviction.

[Bo]

The biggest difference between those two would have been that Gore would have planted a tree on Arbor Day.

You think Gore would have taken us to Iraq?

Gore did criticize Bush Sr. for not going into Baghdad. I suspect his 2003 "opposition" was motivated more by spite than ideological conviction.

I thought Gore criticized Bush Sr. for ignoring Saddam's links to terrorism, not for refusing to go into Baghdad. Could you please find a source for your claims?

Also, Clinton didn't invade Iraq after Saddam kicked the U.N. inspectors out (in 1998), and nothing really changed in regards to Iraq between 1998 and 2003, so I don't see Gore invading Iraq. Back in 2002, Gore said that the reason he supported the Gulf War was because Iraq invaded a sovereign country, while he opposes another invasion of Iraq because Iraq didn't invade anyone at that moment.

[Derek]

Hello, that happened in 2008.