Originally Posted by SteelTherapy
It's the same thing in politics. They need true competition to bring out the best quality candidates.
again, part of the problem is the sheer spread of demographics being represented. there are plenty of folks that feel their candidates are the cat's ass. we can agree they may be deluded, but look at any demographic spectrum of United States Occupants (I hesitate to say citizens, because the dumbasses in charge aren't legally allowed to ask someone for proof of citzenship as a requirement to vote)
anyway, I digress. the point is, that if you look at the spectrum of people here in the US, on any given demographic metric, you will see a HUGE spread amongst the roughly 300,000,000 people here.
regardless of the metric involved - that spread no doubt follows a normal distribution (bell curve for those that scratch their heads at stats more meaningful than calculating a simple average)
the meat of the bell curve (perhaps more than 2 standard deviations worth) of any of those demographic metrics probably are enamored with one aspect of what they have heard from a specific candidate.
the problem is that each of us are on a vacuous point of a pretty broad spectrum and form our opinions based on relatively limited information based on how a pundit might phrase a debate question, or how a speech writer might have their candidate tout a planned program/reform/promise.
for some folks, abortion rights / right to life is a HUGE issue. for others it's the economy, tax policy, immigration policy, national defense, civil liberties the color of the skin, or accent, or... well you get the idea.
the long rambling point I guess I'm making is, that while the "system" as a whole generates less than ideal candidates, I honestly can't think of another system that would work better.
how do you ensure competition of truly qualified, properly motivated, truly representative people to nominate, campaign for, and have the stamina to see the job through?