How Much Substance Do You Really Expect From Candidates

Saint by the Bay said

I think when people talk about substance they really have other problems with the candidate but that sounds more sophisticated than "his name sounds funny" or "but he's a mooselim."

Look at Kerry last year. Few candidates ever have had as much substance and specifics in his speeches and people constantly complained he was boring people. It's not hard to find candidates actual proposals if you care in the age of the internet. Most people don't really care though. "No substance" is a crutch that gives you a convenient reason for not liking someone because frankly nobody talks "substance".

Click to expand...

Agreed that Kerry had a lot of meat in his platform and speeches and bored people. However, that election was super close with Bush only getting 2.4% more of the vote...I think Kerry failed to identify with voters in the South. I'm not in the camp that only criticizes one candidate. I'm not hearing much substance from Guliani or Thompson and even Romney is light (maybe people don't believe he's truly committed to his platform and will change depending on the political winds).

Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are running on what I believe to be dramatic change platforms, and therefore are unlikely (in my opinion) to withstand the might of the Establishment. As I read Obama's platform I find it very fluffy, filled with generalities and vague enough to safely remain within the Democratic party boundaries of the status quo. On one hand we claim to want candidates who will implement change, but on the other, we are frightened to death of them.