You would be more likely to vote for a returning president during an election if, instead of campaigning, they spent the last 6 months of their term focusing on their job, amirite?
Nobody would know they were paying more attention to their job...People would just think "Oh, hes so sure he'll be reelected that he's not trying?" Wow, how conceited, I'm not voting for him."
Campaigning wins elections.
It's terrible, but it's true.
We just held mayoral elections in my town. The man running for reelection has done a ton for the town, including having a park built and bringing 4 major businesses to our town (that's a lot in a small town that used to have just one store). The other guy still won. He had no experience. The only thing he had going for him was money. He made sure his face was seen all over town.
Personally, I would vote for the man who did his job and did it well, but the majority of people don't vote like that. They vote for the one that campaigns the most. High school never ends; elections always end up being one big popularity contest.
Most Americans don't put in that much effort to vote, let alone to inform themselves about the issues. If they're bombarded with ads all supporting the same candidate, eventually that just be what they believe.
No president has ever tried not campaigning, but I know of several local elections where the returning candidate did that, and he lost every time. A good track record isn't enough to the average voter.
Winston Churchill, who really helped the 3 allies during WW2 and was probably GB's best prime minister, didn't get reelected because he didn't think he had to campaign.
That may be true but I have some faith in humanity to respect a person who does not return the attacks of the other party, and instead focuses on the job we elected him or her to do for a full 4 years
No, that doesn't really make sense. I mean like, wouldn't you study before a test? So why wouldn't you campaign before an election? A returning president could probably fix the economy and cure cancer and people would still go for the guy with more publicity. Sadly, campaigning is about winning over the people because people are dumb and believe what they are presented instead of doing the research themselves.
People tend to focus on who is getting the most attention. If one person is always doing ads and campaigning they will be more in the minds of citizens when they go to vote, versus one who didn't do any campaigning.
You're telling me that if hypothetically mitt Romney was attacking Obama through all of these campaigns and in response Obama says something like "Id rather spend my time doing my job, rather then get in all this hype" people would forget about Obama?
What I'm saying is that if Obama did not do any ads, or campaigning whatsoever and instead spent 100% of his time on the country (which no president has ever done in the history of America), that Mitt Romney's chances of winning would sky rocket; especially amongst the undecided which takes up a lot of the voting percentage right now because most people only know what they hear on the news and see in the ads, they don't bother researching or going into depth on a candidate. So if one has more ads, they're going to "know" more on that person and want to see that candidate in office versus one who's completely silent.
To be fair, Obama cancelled all of his campaign stuff because, he has to deal with preparations for Hurricane Sandy. So, isn't that kind of what you are saying?
I'd be more likely to vote for a returning president if I were 18+.
Nobody would know they were paying more attention to their job...People would just think "Oh, hes so sure he'll be reelected that he's not trying?" Wow, how conceited, I'm not voting for him."
Campaigning wins elections.
It's terrible, but it's true.
We just held mayoral elections in my town. The man running for reelection has done a ton for the town, including having a park built and bringing 4 major businesses to our town (that's a lot in a small town that used to have just one store). The other guy still won. He had no experience. The only thing he had going for him was money. He made sure his face was seen all over town.
Personally, I would vote for the man who did his job and did it well, but the majority of people don't vote like that. They vote for the one that campaigns the most. High school never ends; elections always end up being one big popularity contest.
They'd probably lose though.
Most Americans don't put in that much effort to vote, let alone to inform themselves about the issues. If they're bombarded with ads all supporting the same candidate, eventually that just be what they believe.
How do you know? No president has ever tried
No president has ever tried not campaigning, but I know of several local elections where the returning candidate did that, and he lost every time. A good track record isn't enough to the average voter.
Winston Churchill, who really helped the 3 allies during WW2 and was probably GB's best prime minister, didn't get reelected because he didn't think he had to campaign.
That may be true but I have some faith in humanity to respect a person who does not return the attacks of the other party, and instead focuses on the job we elected him or her to do for a full 4 years
So is every POTD going to be serious from now on?
We finally have a good, debatable POTD and you complain about it being too serious.
I like this post. But my question still stands.
Well in that case, no.
Okay. I was just wondering if that was what the admin preferred or something.
It could be. I think the admins have moods. Remember when they started homepaging all the waffle (or was it pancakes?) posts?
Phew. You're still here :)
Well that's not funny at all.
No, that doesn't really make sense. I mean like, wouldn't you study before a test? So why wouldn't you campaign before an election? A returning president could probably fix the economy and cure cancer and people would still go for the guy with more publicity. Sadly, campaigning is about winning over the people because people are dumb and believe what they are presented instead of doing the research themselves.
People tend to focus on who is getting the most attention. If one person is always doing ads and campaigning they will be more in the minds of citizens when they go to vote, versus one who didn't do any campaigning.
You're telling me that if hypothetically mitt Romney was attacking Obama through all of these campaigns and in response Obama says something like "Id rather spend my time doing my job, rather then get in all this hype" people would forget about Obama?
What I'm saying is that if Obama did not do any ads, or campaigning whatsoever and instead spent 100% of his time on the country (which no president has ever done in the history of America), that Mitt Romney's chances of winning would sky rocket; especially amongst the undecided which takes up a lot of the voting percentage right now because most people only know what they hear on the news and see in the ads, they don't bother researching or going into depth on a candidate. So if one has more ads, they're going to "know" more on that person and want to see that candidate in office versus one who's completely silent.
I miss the POTD being updated at 7 EST ;_; it was always something to look forward to at night
Same here :/
THANK YOU!
To be fair, Obama cancelled all of his campaign stuff because, he has to deal with preparations for Hurricane Sandy. So, isn't that kind of what you are saying?
To be fair, Romney also canceled his campaign.
Now neither of them can win!