Irrefutable proof that U.S. politics is nothing more than a popularity contest

[TragicMonkey]

Again, that's not the point! People wouldn't even be voting for him if he was an Everday Joe and otherwise a nobody.

~Dr. Imago

And you know this how?

 

[Dr. Imago]

And you know this how?

Come on. Really? Don't be disingenuous.

~Dr. Imago

 

[Spindrift]

Bad example. That was an era which (is fortunately over and) when women were not generally perceived to be, with exception, anything more than good at being wives and mothers. Plus, I never said (ala Trump) that it means you will win. Schwarzenegger is a much better example of high office going to a moron.

You keep missing the point. I've never denied that celebrity doesn't help but it's not a guarantee of anything.

Grasping at straws by dismissing the Shirley Temple example?
Okay, how about Ralph Waite? Very popular male actor, lost twice. Noble Willingham, another male actor, a Republican who lost, in Texas. Lynn Swann, a football player, lost in football crazy Pennsylvania.

I never said he was "unqualified." That bar is pretty low anyway. I said he is going to win the primary due to his popularity, not his qualifications. If this was otherwise untrue, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

~Dr. Imago

Whether or not it's true has never been established. Your asserting it doesn't make it so. Do you have polling data that backs up your assertion?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Come on. Really? Don't be disingenuous.

~Dr. Imago

You seem to be confused by what skeptics are. I'll clue you in: appeals to "oh come on, you know!" don't work. Nor do assumptions without basis in fact beyond "but it's common sense!". Oh, and saying something is "irrefutable proof" of something when it's clearly a personal opinion (on politics!) is like waving a red flag at a bull. You started this thread to bemoan the state of politics, America, humanity, whatever because you have a personal dislike of a candidate based, apparently, entirely on his past activity on a television show, and in total ignorance of everything else he's done. It shouldn't be surprising to you that people would check the facts, do some research, and dare to disagree.

 

[Minoosh]

Yes. Duh!

Duh?

The question is "how". I'm sick and tired of people using their celebrity as some automatic imprimatur that they are qualified to run for office.

Who should be in charge of eliminating candidates?

Ability to get elected shouldn't be the qualifying trait. It's a real problem with our current system.

Well, it is the qualifying trait, whether you like it or not. Now: What do you think should be done differently?

Throwing a tantrum is not the same thing as making an argument.

 

[Mark6]

The only way to have truly representative democracy is to select representatives by lot. Which is not unprecedented -- that's how classical Greeks did it.

 

[Dr. Imago]

You seem to be confused by what skeptics are. I'll clue you in: appeals to "oh come on, you know!" don't work. Nor do assumptions without basis in fact beyond "but it's common sense!". Oh, and saying something is "irrefutable proof" of something when it's clearly a personal opinion (on politics!) is like waving a red flag at a bull. You started this thread to bemoan the state of politics, America, humanity, whatever because you have a personal dislike of a candidate based, apparently, entirely on his past activity on a television show, and in total ignorance of everything else he's done. It shouldn't be surprising to you that people would check the facts, do some research, and dare to disagree.

You are assuming that you can easily quantify popularity and then quote it in a peer-reviewed journal, which seems to be what is required as "proof" for this forum. This has nothing to do with classic skepticism. What I am skeptical about, however, is the American public's general ability to weigh what a candidate actually stands for and cast this vote based upon that factor versus other intangible factors such as celebrity.

I'm sure you can put examples out of famous or quasi-famous people who ran for office and didn't win. Some of the names of the people above I hadn't even heard of. But, this is Clay Aiken were talking about. And, i'll stand by what I said: we wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for his appearance on American Idol.

~Dr. Imago

 

[I Am The Scum]

You are assuming that you can easily quantify popularity and then quote it in a peer-reviewed journal...

Sociologists do stuff like this all the time

But, this is Clay Aiken were talking about. And, i'll stand by what I said: we wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for his appearance on American Idol.

I agree. You are, after all, the one who started the thread, for that very reason.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You are assuming that you can easily quantify popularity and then quote it in a peer-reviewed journal, which seems to be what is required as "proof" for this forum.

No, I am not. You seem to be confusing me with someone else. What I'm saying is that you're making a claim that people are only voting for this man because of "popularity", which you seem to be defining as "fame". In fact the very point of a representative democracy is for people to vote to the candidate they find most appealing, but you feel that this particular candidate's voters find him appealing for the wrong reasons. As defined by you, of course.

This has nothing to do with classic skepticism. What I am skeptical about, however, is the American public's general ability to weigh what a candidate actually stands for and cast this vote based upon that factor versus other intangible factors such as celebrity.

Like so. You don't think this candidate is meritorious, therefore you can't conceive that anyone else could, therefore anyone voting for him must be doing so for other, and wrong, reasons.

I'm sure you can put examples out of famous or quasi-famous people who ran for office and didn't win. Some of the names of the people above I hadn't even heard of. But, this is Clay Aiken were talking about. And, i'll stand by what I said: we wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for his appearance on American Idol.

I think we can all agree on your last sentence, since you were the one who started this thread. Nobody else seems to mind a past candidate on some stupid TV show contest (didn't he lose, anyway?) might seek office or, heaven forfend, actually be able to appeal to enough voters who feel he's qualified despite your condemnation of him.

~Dr. Imago

You really don't need to sign your posts, btw, they're already signed by their nature. Your name is already next to each of them.

 

[Spindrift]

I have to say that I had heard Clay Aiken was running for office and my only thought was, "What a joke." Not my state, I don't really care. However, thanks to this thread, I've come to the conclusion, it's not a joke. Mr. Aiken is an intelligent, caring person, who has become involved in some specific issues and has decided to become more involved. Sounds like someone who could do a good job.

As far as business experience goes for elected officials, it's vastly overrated by many people. Government is not a business nor should it be run like one. If the US was run like a business Arizona would have been sold off long ago, every highway and road would have a toll, drug patents would never expire, mail would be delivered once a week and veterans pensions would be non-existent.

 

[plague311]

You are assuming that you can easily quantify popularity and then quote it in a peer-reviewed journal, which seems to be what is required as "proof" for this forum. This has nothing to do with classic skepticism. What I am skeptical about, however, is the American public's general ability to weigh what a candidate actually stands for and cast this vote based upon that factor versus other intangible factors such as celebrity.

I'm sure you can put examples out of famous or quasi-famous people who ran for office and didn't win. Some of the names of the people above I hadn't even heard of. But, this is Clay Aiken were talking about. And, i'll stand by what I said: we wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for his appearance on American Idol.

~Dr. Imago

Not to dispute your rant, but I honestly had no idea who the guy was before you started this thread. I don't think he is quite the raging celebrity you consider him. First off, he didn't even win the American Idol. He was the runner up, some guy named Ruben something or another won.

Second, and lastly, if you throw out the American Idol performance, and judge him on his merits as a person (which everyone here is trying to tell you to do) then you come up with:

A 35 year old male who has dedicated a very large portion of his life to helping those with mental disabilities. He is a college graduate with experience in his field. He has good morals, and his platform appears to be solid. He has multiple awards for his philanthropy and has been recognized by his community as a leader.

YOU are ignoring all of those things.

 

[theprestige]

And, i'll stand by what I said: we wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for his appearance on American Idol.

That much is true, anyway. There's probably scores of unqualified candidates out there you've never heard of, winning races you've never looked at, because, hey, they're not popular.

You chose to have this discussion, and you chose to make it about his popularity. That's not his fault. You didn't choose to discuss his qualifications, or his actual platform. You probably haven't even looked at the qualifications or platform of his opponent--because his opponent isn't popularity, and for the purposes of this discussion, popularity is the only thing that matters to you.

Other people in this thread have gone to the trouble to look at Aiken's candidancy, and to explain that there's more to him, more to his qualifications, and more to his platform than just his American Idol appearance. You've brushed aside all of that to keep insisting that his popularity is the only factor to consider.

I think the person in this discussion who's the most hung up on popularity, and the least interested in what the candidates really have to offer, is you.

I'm sorry you can't find a peer-reviewed paper or reputable opinion poll to support your claim that Aiken is doing well because of American Idol, rather than his qualifications, platform, social causes, and party affiliation. But your inability to find evidence doesn't relieve you of your burden of proof.

Your harping on popularity only proves that popularity is what you care about the most.

 

[Minoosh]

I was impressed by his "Idol" arc. The guy's got chutzpah for sure.

 

[DavidJames]

But, this is Clay Aiken were talking about...

Why don't you list out why he's not qualified for the job? Please be specific and use his stand on issues as part of the context.

And, i'll stand by what I said: we wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for his appearance on American Idol.

I agree with you, but not why you might think. You wouldn't have said squat if Clay Nobody (not from Idol) were running. You are making the jump from celebrity to not qualified. I'm asking you to show your work.

 

[Ladewig]

No wonder we're generally perceived as a bunch of morons by the rest of the world.

~Dr. Imago

What irony.

One of the most popular reasons that Americans are called morons is that in 2014, we are still vehemently arguing about whether or not gays should be married. Mr. Aiken has spoken in favor of gay rights. We are also called morons because of the number of working adults living below the poverty line - another issue that Mr. Aiken wants to address.

..............

I wish we could return to the time when the majority of voting Americans researched issues and each candidate's positions before voting; but that time never existed, so we can't go back to that.

Other countries¹ accept that popularity and fame will be factors in elections - those countries do not do anything to prevent or limit famous or popular people from running for office. The U.S. should do the same.



1) Wikipedia has a list of foreign politician who previously worked as entertainers.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Why don't you list out why he's not qualified for the job? Please be specific and use his stand on issues as part of the context.
I agree with you, but not why you might think. You wouldn't have said squat if Clay Nobody (not from Idol) were running. You are making the jump from celebrity to not qualified. I'm asking you to show your work.

Uggh... Again, not the point and not what I said. I said the other candidate is more qualified. But, because of Aiken's celebrity, he essentially is going to get the popularity vote. That, in essence, this trumps the fact that he is younger, less experienced, in life, less educated, etc. this gives him an unfair advantage.

I'm really having a hard time understanding why many of you can't grasp this relatively simple concept.

~Dr. Imago

 

[I Am The Scum]

Uggh... Again, not the point and not what I said. I said the other candidate is more qualified. But, because of Aiken's celebrity, he essentially is going to get the popularity vote. That, in essence, this trumps the fact that he is younger, less experienced, in life, less educated, etc. this gives him an unfair advantage.

I'm really having a hard time understanding why many of you can't grasp this relatively simple concept.

~Dr. Imago

How, exactly, are we supposed to reform the system such that name recognition is completely removed from the democratic process? All new candidates will take on aliases? Censor their faces in public appearances?

 

[theprestige]

Uggh... Again, not the point and not what I said. I said the other candidate is more qualified.

Have you actually compared their qualifications in detail? Several posters have given you a good start, but you've ignored them in favor of repeating this:

But, because of Aiken's celebrity, he essentially is going to get the popularity vote.

You keep repeating this, but you also keep failing to support it with any kind of evidence.

So against the people who keep telling you, "here's evidence of good reasons to vote for Clay Aiken", you reply, without evidence, that those reasons don't matter.

Is this that "love to rush to judgement" thing again? You think it's about popularity contests, and no amount of evidence will change your mind?

 

[plague311]

Uggh... Again, not the point and not what I said. I said the other candidate is more qualified.

What makes him more qualified? Because he went to Harvard?

But, because of Aiken's celebrity, he essentially is going to get the popularity vote.

You don't know that unless you assume that each and every voter that is voting for him knows his "celebrity status", has no idea what his stance is, and that in North Carolina they blindly vote for people cause they're cool. None of which do you have ANY possible way of supporting.

That, in essence, this trumps the fact that he is younger, less experienced, in life, less educated, etc. this gives him an unfair advantage.

Less experienced in life, wtf does that mean? So because the other guy is older? Also, less educated? Doesn't he just have a different education?

I'm really having a hard time understanding why many of you can't grasp this relatively simple concept.

~Dr. Imago

I am really having a hard time understanding why you can't just admit that you might be wrong in this specific case.

 

[NoahFence]

You are assuming that you can easily quantify popularity and then quote it in a peer-reviewed journal, which seems to be what is required as "proof" for this forum. This has nothing to do with classic skepticism. What I am skeptical about, however, is the American public's general ability to weigh what a candidate actually stands for and cast this vote based upon that factor versus other intangible factors such as celebrity.

I'm sure you can put examples out of famous or quasi-famous people who ran for office and didn't win. Some of the names of the people above I hadn't even heard of. But, this is Clay Aiken were talking about. And, i'll stand by what I said: we wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for his appearance on American Idol.

~Dr. Imago

How could you at this moment possibly know if he'd be a sucess or a failure?