Why is Chris Matthews being so honest about US presidential elections?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most people don't vote on personalities, they vote party line. That smaller margin of undecideds may take personality factors heavily into account and yes they decide the election so it may feel like an election is being decided on something stupid, but in reality most people (the "base" for each party) are voting based on their political ideals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Foal, I think it's important to recognize that the two parties have no logically consistent "ideals." What they are is merely a coalition of various interests which will always comprise roughly half the voting populace. If national sentiment changes to reflect the idea that issue X is very important, one party will not be left to crumble. The rhetoric of the party lines will just shift to encompass the change in a way each party deems is to its best interest.

For instance, a Republican would not say "Marijuana is harmless" even though he knows he could win votes from some people by saying this. He knows his core is such where he would alienate more votes than he would gain. But as more people begin to agree with the idea that "marijuana is harmless" it becomes more plausible for a Republican to see it in his best interest to say such a thing.

The two parties, since they're acting rationally and are both extremely skilled at what they do, will always appeal to about half the voting populace. Thus, things like personality, height, and which snippy comments certain candidates come up with to attack their competitors will always play a critical role. We essentially elect the leader of the free world based on a process befitting of a sorority election. (And that's arguably insulting to a lot of sororities.)

[/ QUOTE ]

How could you so thoroughly elucidate modern two-party electoral politics without grasping that all the pre-election positioning is in fact a very sophisticated, very efficient selection mechanism?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
How could you so thoroughly elucidate modern two-party electoral politics without grasping that all the pre-election positioning is in fact a very sophisticated, very efficient selection mechanism?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is in fact a very efficient, very sophisticated mechanism for defeating the other person, getting elected, and absolutely nothing more. Since the average voter doesn't really understand most of the issues that the politician speaks of, I don't necessarily think too highly of this result. How could you possibly be naive enough to think there's anything to it other than a competition of who can encompass support from the people who are most likely to claim a strong knee jerk reaction?

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
Foal, I think it's important to recognize that the two parties have no logically consistent "ideals." What they are is merely a coalition of various interests which will always comprise roughly half the voting populace. If national sentiment changes to reflect the idea that issue X is very important, one party will not be left to crumble. The rhetoric of the party lines will just shift to encompass the change in a way each party deems is to its best interest.

For instance, a Republican would not say "Marijuana is harmless" even though he knows he could win votes from some people by saying this. He knows his core is such where he would alienate more votes than he would gain. But as more people begin to agree with the idea that "marijuana is harmless" it becomes more plausible for a Republican to see it in his best interest to say such a thing.

The two parties, since they're acting rationally and are both extremely skilled at what they do, will always appeal to about half the voting populace. Thus, things like personality, height, and which snippy comments certain candidates come up with to attack their competitors will always play a critical role. We essentially elect the leader of the free world based on a process befitting of a sorority election. (And that's arguably insulting to a lot of sororities.)

[/ QUOTE ]
My point wasn't that party lines are consistent, it was that far more people vote based on which party a candidate represents than on things like personality or charm. Obviously not all democrats/republicans agree on everything. But at the moment Democrats are more likely to be pro-choice, pro social programs, pro business regulation, pro welfare... while Republicans are more likely to be pro gun rights, pro-life, anti civil liberties, pro tax cuts... For many people there is a clear cut best choice out of the two parties. For others, like some libertarians and independents, both are pretty much equally displeasing.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
at the moment Democrats are more likely to be pro-choice, pro social programs, pro business regulation, pro welfare... while Republicans are more likely to be pro gun rights, pro-life, anti civil liberties, pro tax cuts... For many people there is a clear cut best choice out of the two parties.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is indeed. Because the two parties have aligned themselves so efficiently.

But it doesn't change the fact that the election is then decided by the people who aren't drawn as strongly to one coalition or the other, and then the choice comes down to things like looks, personality, or choice of words.