In Europe we know very well that US politics is deeply personalized, in the sense that the person of the politician usually wins on political programs, in relation with the preferences of the electorate. Anyway, usually a certain level of political debate "survives" also [I could say even] in American electoral campaigns. May be EU medias present a distorted image of this electoral campaign, but the impression is that it's about person, regardless [or even despite] their political programs, ideologies, ideals, opinions, projects ... So, I would like to know the original impression of the Americans: do you think this electoral campaign is too focused on persons, or it's commonly so? Or in EU we've got a wrong impression and politics is still running the presidential campaign?
The campaign is far too focussed on personalities. So is political coverage in the news. So is political advertising. In fact it seems that many Americans don't give a damn about the policies.
Keeping into the right consideration the great power [and the degree of freedom to exercise it] that a President of the United States detains ... my humble opinion is that while judging the person [it's obvious that such a Chief of State has to be a suitable individual for a so important office], Americans should judge also the political background of the candidates. For example, during Obama mandates I have heard someone [who voted him] complaining that he has been running too leftist policies. Ehm ... if they payed attention to his political program instead of being fascinated by the fact that he was going to be "The First Afro-American President" [FAAP] ... Now with Hillary Clinton they run the same risk: many US electors are fascinated by the fact that Hillary Clinton could be "The First Female President" [FFP], I'm afraid they don't know a nut about Clinton's political programs [if they imagine she will go on with Obama's policies ... in some fields they will be really surprised!].
In Presidential elections, most people either vote with the same party they usually vote for or stay home. There is a 5-6% wedge in the middle that decides elections and they are hard to model in an open-seat election. Parties just try to neuter them by getting out more of their voters than usual with the hope they can turn that 5-6% into 2-4%.
So, at the end, there is a wide traditional vote in US, based in any case on a political affiliation, so a certain ideological membership, if we want. Why is this not underlined during the electoral campaign? To get the votes of that variable minority who could not be attracted by political ideologies and/or orientations?
The election process in this country pretty much guarantees that we will never get quality candidates. Anyone who is truly qualified for the job is too smart to want it. We expend enormous amounts of energy treating politics like a football game; US vs THEM, and we spend very little time actually paying attention to important issues. And the media compounds this problem by treating the whole thing like the Superbowl. Two teams the majority of Americans don't care about, giving millions upon millions of dollars to the mass media in exchange for ineffective TV ads that, while amusing to watch, do not really sell the product, and ultimately battling it out on the field in hopes of winning the pathetic "Lesser of Two Evils Bowl, XLV".
It is very much important behind the scenes. In terms of candidates, they have probably learned that voters do not like to know that they are sheep. When people talk about "ground game", "grass roots" and the like, they are not talking about convincing me to vote for candidate X. They are talking about already knowing I will vote for Candidate X if I do vote, so Candidate X's folks are making sure I get to the polls that day instead of taking a nap. They are not going door to door now with the hope of raising support based on neighborhood profiles--they increasingly know already which doors to knock on or not to knock on.
every time a late night talk show interviews people on the streets, its evident they do not even know what the policies of the candidate is... just generic talking points... and quite often the talk shows will tell them the policy of the candidate they oppose, but tell them it came from the person they support, and they almost always agree... so it serves to show americans simply are not knowledgeable of the policies if they can be this easily fooled and tricked into saying they support something of the opposing candidate... all the talk show person had to do was mention Hillary to a Hillary supporter or Trump to a Trump supporter, and they would agree blindly... its just sickening sometimes... I realize someone shoving a microphone in your face and holding a camera might give you a temporary lapse of thought... but deep down you should know when someone is reciting the things you claim to support or oppose... it just shows how little americans know of "the other side" or care to learn... its a deeply deeply divided political party system... people won't even know the names of some of their own candidates, just they vote for one party or the other... its sad...
The situation is not very different also here, may be we record a higher interest in politics and participation because being a parliamentary Republic, Italy sees a certain number of parties represented in the parliament. If I think to the bigger ones, I would say they are 5 with other minor ones. On a side this forces Italy to know only coalition governments, on the other side it makes politics well more "variable", less obvious, and may be [may be] more interesting. But at the end, also here it's no more exactly about politics. The last decades have seen a politics more and more personalized. I wouldn't talk about a sport match, here it's more similar to a Real TV Show.
In Italy local sections of the parties make this job, keeping the contacts with the traditional voters. For many years the two main parties, during the period of the Cold War, Communists and Christian Democrats, have managed the territories with their local offices and with a very pervasive and widespread organization within the civil society. Today [and this is positive], it's less evident. There is still only a party which can run this: the Democrat Party [former Communists, they have still got all their local offices].
I understand this perspective and it's shareable, overall remarking that the American electoral system rewards the first one. A handful of votes can decide if the representative of your region will be this or that [in a proportional system the effect is less black or white]. I would expect that US electors wanted to know who could represent them in case of electoral victory ...
Actually I don't think I've seen a more personality driven election in the US. Trump is basically a moderate Republican who is running on a similar program as Romney did in 2012. But the establishment wing of the party is in open revolt against the voters over a candidate who has 90% of their agenda. Right now, it looks like they would rather throw the election and put Hillary in office, then go with the guy who agrees with them 90%. It's crazy.
That is correct. If Americans cared about policies, Hillary and Trump wouldn't even be on any stage at all.
And this is a good point: we are observing as power remains the core of politics. The Republicans seem to prefer the risk to lose the Presidential elections [renouncing to the White House, in this way] than to risk to lose their internal system of power [Trump at the White House would cause a real earthquake in the Party]. I would expect Reps to bet on the most winning horse ... that is to say Trump. It's like Republicans have found a way to manage power controlling the Congress and the Senate, without feeling all that urgency to take over the Oval Office ... they prefer a certain "low level power", in the shadow, to a high level power which, once conquered, could generate internal tenses in the GOP which could be difficult to stand. And doing this, they renounce to the possibility to have a President who endorses Republican policies!
That is because media does not focus on policies. If they did they would have to promote debate between candidates upon policies. Media has an agenda favoring policies, very often that are against the interests of the American people.
