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

[Nova Land]

People are only talking about Clay Aiken so far on this thread, a 35-year-old pop star with fairly anodyne positions on current social issues. That's versus the state controller and business entrepreneur who understands government machinations, as well as having far greater life experience.

That's the fault of the person who started this thread. If you read the OP you will see that the topic offered up for discussion in the OP is not Which of the two Democrats running in the North Carolina district 2 primary is the better candidate?; it's Celebrities are unfit to run for Congress; case in point, Clay Aiken.

Yes, those of us replying to the OP could have gone off-topic into a discussion of the relative merits/demerits of Aiken's opponent in the primary, Keith Crisco, or Aiken's opponent in the November election, Renee Ellmers. We chose instead to address the issue you raised in the OP.

If you wanted this to be a discussion of the relative merits of Aiken and Ellmers, you should have written the OP to indicate that. Not only didn't you mention Aiken's primary opponent in the OP, you haven't mentioned Aiken's primary opponent by name anywhere in this thread. I believe I'm the first one to do so.

I can understand why you might prefer at this point to drop the topic you raised in the OP (your belief that Aiken is totally unsuited for the office he's running for, and that people are only supporting him because he's a celebrity) and switch instead to a discussion of Aiken's qualifications relative to Crisco's qualifications. Your original topic appears to have been based on hasty assumptions on your part which you didn't bother to check into before posting. The best thing to do is learn from your mistake and be more careful in the future.

 

[theprestige]

Your original topic appears to have been based on hasty assumptions on your part which you didn't bother to check into before posting. The best thing to do is learn from your mistake and be more careful in the future.

Ironically this thread follows closely upon another thread where he made the exact same mistake and failed to learn the exact same lesson you recommend here.

 

[Spindrift]

Not only didn't you mention Aiken's primary opponent in the OP, you haven't mentioned Aiken's primary opponent by name anywhere in this thread. I believe I'm the first one to do so.

Aiken's opponent isn't famous so maybe he didn't know his name.

 

[Border Reiver]

Aiken's opponent isn't famous so maybe he didn't know his name.

Makes it hard to be considered, regardless of qualifications, if you can't get your name out there...

 

[theprestige]

I keep thinking about the adage, "all politics is local".

Clay Aiken has more name recognition with Dr. Imago than Keith Crisco does, because American Idol is part of the nation's popular culture. But that doesn't necessarily mean Aiken has more name recognition than Crisco, among the voters of North Carolina.

There are plenty of local politicians in my neck of the woods, who have huge name recognition here, and who would handily outstrip "that guy from American Idol" in any serious political contest--unless that guy were also a serious local politician.

If Aiken is giving Crisco a run for his money, I bet it has a lot less to do with his national name recognition than his local name recognition. And Aiken's local name recognition is going to be the result of his local efforts. So it really is no surprise that Dr. Imago, who only knows Aiken as a national C-list celebrity, and is unaware of his local political efforts in North Carolina, can't imagine any other reason to vote for him than his national notoriety.

My experience is that national notoriety has a lot less to do with local politics than Dr. Imago seems to think. I mean, I doubt he's heard of Tony Atkins before about quarter of a second ago (two or three seconds if he's a slow reader). But she's probably got a lot more name recognition among voters around here than Clay Aiken does. For sure Aiken's national notoriety would mean nothing in a political contest with Atkins.

I dunno, maybe politics are different where Dr. Imago lives. Maybe they just elected Flava Flav or something?

 

[Manopolus]

Again, thanks for (again) proving (perhaps unwittingly) my point. I'm not even going to fully respond the "government is not a business" comment because it is well beyond the scope of this thread. But, suffice it to say that your sentiment is precisely why this country is in so much trouble financially.

~Dr. Imago

I'm glad you didn't want to talk about it in this thread, because I personally think the whole purpose of a government is to make sure that businesses don't become the government and proceed to make every government decision based on how much money you happen to have and are willing to pay them. I'd have to slap you down mercilessly if you really wanted to talk about that. (and in case you didn't notice, that is actually how businesses are run... every single decision is about money and nothing else. Corporations have to operate that way by law).

Also note that most Democrats tend to agree with me on this, and it's the Democrats' Primary we're talking about here.

 

[Travis]

We got living proof in the White House that this is a true heading.

You really think that in 2007 Obama was more well known than John McCain?

 

[ABC10]

You really think that in 2007 Obama was more well known than John McCain?

Agreeing that Obama election is "irrefutable proof that U.S. politics is nothing more than popularity contest".

 

[Molinaro]

I predict a win for Clay... considering that his opponent just died.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I'm pretty sure this settles the matter of which candidate is more qualified.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Isn't democracy a popularity contest? This is news?!

 

[Puppycow]

I predict a win for Clay... considering that his opponent just died.

I'm pretty sure this settles the matter of which candidate is more qualified.

Too soon.

 

[Travis]

Agreeing that Obama election is "irrefutable proof that U.S. politics is nothing more than popularity contest".

The one with the most votes wins. So by definition all elections are popularity contests. Are you suggesting that people don't vote for the candidate they think would be better for the job?

 

[Spindrift]

I'm pretty sure this settles the matter of which candidate is more qualified.

It's North Carolina, where 54% still oppose same sex marriage. For a lot of people down there a dead straight guy is more qualified than a live gay guy.

 

[pgwenthold]

It's North Carolina, where 54% still oppose same sex marriage. For a lot of people down there a dead straight guy is more qualified than a live gay guy.

Yeah, but we're talking the democratic primary, not the general election.

So the 54% number, which is overall, does not reflect the democratic population.

 

[3point14]

Democracy by it's nature is a popularity contest and always has been.

The only way to base votes on politics is to have a politically educated populace and I'm pretty sure that neither the US or the UK have this. It is not in the interests of the incumbent polititians to change the status quo or they'd have to start telling the truth and, incidentally, would never, ever be elected again.


And the nominations of western democracy most likely to have a population sufficiently politically aware to make voting not a popularity contest are...

 

[Nova Land]

The one with the most votes wins. So by definition all elections are popularity contests.

You're right.

But in most elections it's the popularity of the candidates' stands and their perceived leadership qualities which win votes. In the OP Dr. Imago was claiming that in the North Carolina district 2 Congressional primary people were voting for a candidate because of the candidate's celebrity status (related to having appeared a decade or so ago on several episodes of American Idol).

If that had been the reason why Clay Aiken was leading in the polls, that would have been a significantly different kind of popularity contest than the 2008 presidential election (when voters found Barack Obama's political positions and leadership style more appealing than John McCain's political positions and leadership style), and a significantly different kind of popularity contest than the 2012 presidential election (when voters found Barack Obama's political positions and leadership style more appealing than Mitt Romney's). Neither Obama, McCain, nor Romney had the kind of celebrity which Dr. Imago believed Clay Aiken possessed.

That's not to say that John McCain hasn't been a celebrity in his day, as a former POW and as a very frequent Sunday morning talk show guest. But both of those are political (or at least social issues) types of celebrity. What Dr. Imago appeared to be decrying was people winning office based primarily on entertainment-based celebrity.

John Wayne, for instance, had strong right-wing political opinions; if he had run for office in the 1960s or 1970s and won, that would have been an example of the kind of thing feared in the OP, where his victory would almost certainly have been more due to his fame as an actor rather than his qualifications for the office. Similarly, Sigourney Weaver is a popular actress with strong left-wing political opinions; if she were to run for office and win, that would also likely be due to her personal rather than political popularity.

That's been a concern a number of times in the past -- and, I think, a legitimate one. The Chad Mitchell Trio, who often used humor to spotlight serious issues, had a song about this back in the 60s. [NOTE: the song comes on after a brief unrelated introductory joke about LBJ]:



Note to Travis: Even though I'm replying to your post, this post isn't directed at you personally. I realize you are probably already well aware of the distinction I'm trying to draw between people winning elections based on the popularity of their political positions and leadership style and people winning elections based on celebrity fame.

But since there's at least one person in this thread who apparently doesn't understand that distinction, I thought I'd try to clarify it. I hope you don't mind my using your post as the launchpad.

 

[AlBell]

The one with the most votes wins. So by definition all elections are popularity contests. Are you suggesting that people don't vote for the candidate they think would be better for the job?

Science channel a couple weeks ago discussing human sight found that 7 of 10 people picked the election winner just looking at head&shoulders photos of each, suit jackets, ties, no particular emotion obvious on face.

see 2009 article

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-look-of-a-winner/

 

[TheSapient]

You're right.

But in most elections it's the popularity of the candidates' stands and their perceived leadership qualities which win votes. In the OP Dr. Imago was claiming that in the North Carolina district 2 Congressional primary people were voting for a candidate because of the candidate's celebrity status (related to having appeared a decade or so ago on several episodes of American Idol).

If that had been the reason why Clay Aiken was leading in the polls, that would have been a significantly different kind of popularity contest than the 2008 presidential election (when voters found Barack Obama's political positions and leadership style more appealing than John McCain's political positions and leadership style), and a significantly different kind of popularity contest than the 2012 presidential election (when voters found Barack Obama's political positions and leadership style more appealing than Mitt Romney's). Neither Obama, McCain, nor Romney had the kind of celebrity which Dr. Imago believed Clay Aiken possessed.

That's not to say that John McCain hasn't been a celebrity in his day, as a former POW and as a very frequent Sunday morning talk show guest. But both of those are political (or at least social issues) types of celebrity. What Dr. Imago appeared to be decrying was people winning office based primarily on entertainment-based celebrity.

John Wayne, for instance, had strong right-wing political opinions; if he had run for office in the 1960s or 1970s and won, that would have been an example of the kind of thing feared in the OP, where his victory would almost certainly have been more due to his fame as an actor rather than his qualifications for the office. Similarly, Sigourney Weaver is a popular actress with strong left-wing political opinions; if she were to run for office and win, that would also likely be due to her personal rather than political popularity.

That's been a concern a number of times in the past -- and, I think, a legitimate one. The Chad Mitchell Trio, who often used humor to spotlight serious issues, had a song about this back in the 60s. [NOTE: the song comes on after a brief unrelated introductory joke about LBJ]:



Note to Travis: Even though I'm replying to your post, this post isn't directed at you personally. I realize you are probably already well aware of the distinction I'm trying to draw between people winning elections based on the popularity of their political positions and leadership style and people winning elections based on celebrity fame.

But since there's at least one person in this thread who apparently doesn't understand that distinction, I thought I'd try to clarify it. I hope you don't mind my using your post as the launchpad.

I'd say the OP failed to establish that Aiken's success was due to his celebrity status, however. More, he didn't much seem interested in trying. Rather, he seemed to be arguing that Aiken should indeed be judged be his celebrity status, just in a negative way.

I think it is fair to say that being a celebrity can help in an election, especially early on when a candidate is trying to get some traction with donors and the media. But there are many things that can give a person an advantage. Money. Political connections. Family.

If, by "popularity contest", the OP meant that elections are nothing more than a recognition of celebrity, then I think this is obviously untrue.

 

[Nova Land]

I'd say the OP failed to establish that Aiken's success was due to his celebrity status, however. More, he didn't much seem interested in trying.

I agree. And it's a shame he didn't try, because if he had taken the time to research Aiken's campaign and Aiken's popularity with the voters I think he would have seen that it wasn't Aiken's long-ago appearances on American Idol which was boosting Aiken into the lead; it was Aiken.

Aiken's video introduction of himself was excellent. Aiken spoke clearly and passionately about who he is, why he's running, and what he hopes to accomplish if elected. Similarly, his website has an excellent section in which he outlines clear positions on a number of issues (as opposed to the vague platitudes many candidates put in their issues sections). In contrast, Christos' website didn't even have an issues section.

Rather, he seemed to be arguing that Aiken should indeed be judged be his celebrity status, just in a negative way.

You're right. I hadn't thought of it that way before reading your post, but now that you've said it it seems obvious.

I think it is fair to say that being a celebrity can help in an election, especially early on when a candidate is trying to get some traction with donors and the media. But there are many things that can give a person an advantage. Money. Political connections. Family.

Yes. That's another good point.

If, by "popularity contest", the OP meant that elections are nothing more than a recognition of celebrity, then I think this is obviously untrue.

I agree.