Elections decided by false view of reality

Post Reply New Topic

This is something I have been wondering about for awhile. Throughout history have many bad people been elected or re-elected due to the public having a false perception of the world around them?

I am beginning to be curious. Has their ever been a time when a President or Prime Minister did such a terrible job but was elected in spite of that?

Obama.

Yeah, David Cameron and his bandwagon of social cleansing killers.

you are assuming that there is an objective reality

Every Brit who votes labor is going tell you that every conservative party PM who got relected is an example of that. And every Brit who votes Conservative is going to tell you that every Labor party guy who was popular is an example of that.

And every America GOP person is gonna list every Democrat president who served two terms as being an example of that. And every American who is a registered Democrat is gonna tell you that every GOP president who served two terms is an example of that.

Your question is just going to get tons of folks saying "Politician X [a guy/gal who was popular, but whom I dont like] is a PERFECT example of that!"

Its a dumb question thats just gonna get tons of meaningless biased and partisan answers.

If you had tweaked the question by asking for "only examples from more that 50 years ago" or "more than a 100 years ago" it might have been more of a valid question because over time the partisan passions subside, and there gets to be more of a consensus about a historical figure and their impact.

I think the mods should just put the pistol to this thread's head, and put it out of its misery right now. Lol!

Well, these examples aren't as high-up as President or Prime Minister, but.....

Mayor Marion Barry (D.C.) - got caught on video doing cocaine with a prostitute in a hotel room, WHILE he was mayor, and married, and got re-elected (though, it was a few years later). (His son, who was running for City Council, died of an overdose, last year; he was in his 30s.)

Mayor Sheila Dixon (Baltimore) - was essentially fired for personally using giftcards that were donated for poor children, bribery with a mink coat, and a bunch of other stuff----she was the reason the Presidential Train (President Obama's FIRST inauguration) didn't pass-through Baltimore, as usual, as she had just been indicted, like, 10 days, before. Now, she didn't get re-elected, BUT the EXTREMELY narrow margin, had me shaking my head at the news that so many people voted for her (again, this was several years, later).

"false sense of reality" applies to each and every one of them... humans are not gods. Humans do not have title to "rule" or "own" anyone, including non-humans... only with violent atrocity can they do this. Respect of another's freedom of choice goes right out the window when you can do violence or pay someone to do violence to force your will on them. Is what it is...

False sense of reality is that this sort of thing is ok.. it's a root motivator for why anyone goes to any poll to vote on "politics".

No its not. Even if some parts of this question may be subjective their are leaders who have indisputably done terrible things or a bad job and have got re-elected in spite of that. I want to find out more about those people.

Why Obama?

If you say so.



Okay...have there been democratically elected heads of state who have been reelected despite screwing up royally?

There was Mugabe, Hitler, Mussolini, and arguably Putin, who each got "relected" despite doing terrible things. But none of those figures were really "reelected". They were all dictators, or semi-dictators, who "won" fake elections.

So what about heads of actual democracies?

Oddly enough there are two who come to mind who might be examples of what you're talking about. Both were actually quite recent, and both were contemporaries of each other.

One was Italy's Silvio Burlesconi who served as the longest running prime minister of Italy since the fall of Mussolini in WWII, but who is still doing the equivalent of "community service", and has a two year ban on running for office for being convicted of tax fraud. And his tenure had many kinds of scandals. He may not have been the worst person in the world but..

The other is the US's George W. Bush. The younger Bush was a polarizing figure, but won two terms. Dems hated him, and Republicans loved him while he was in office. But now even Republican voters, and worshippers of Donald Trump seem to have turned on W, and they all demonize W for the central event of W's tenure: the invasion of Iraq. So W. might well be an example of how the consensus has already unified against him despite him winning two terms.

But ya never know. Truman left office with low approval numbers, but is thought well of today. Thats why I think that there should be a time limit for a question like this (like: only politicians of forty years ago or more).

Truman, by and large, did an an excellent job.

I'm sure the victims of Nagasaki and Hiroshima would disagree. But there are many who would ask: "what choice did he have?"