> And honestly being supporters of a person instead of a policy or a position is itself a psychological failing.
You'll get no argument from me on that front, but I think that's a pretty bipartisan failing.
Edit: although thinking about it more, it's the person who is going to get your pet agenda items enacted, so practically it probably works better.
Not really? Has there been any cult of personality like Trump's not only among Dems but also among Republicans, aside from him, in American politics within living memory? (awk phrasing, but I think you get the idea).
Maybe Reagan? But even then, it wasn't this level of incredibly personal devotion.
Think about it: we never used the terms "Obama supporter" or "Romney supporter" in 2012, or "Obama supporter" and "McCain supporter" in 2008. And people supporting those candidates didn't wave flags with candidate names on them, etc.
But on supporting people, I think Obama definitely had devoted fans. Bernie did as well. I don't think Romney or McCain had the kind of draw to build up a big fan base. A lot of candidates that come along just aren't very exciting to anybody but their corporate handlers.
It's not all that surprising that an Obama or Trump character gets a strong following. Both of them reached out to people who felt like nobody in power cared about them.
Yeah, we definitely have a problem in this country with limited options. I think a sizeable majority likely want at least one or two other parties in the mix.