system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
ELI5; Why do people concentrate on political win-ability rather than how honest the politician is?

Nearly every article i read talks discusses whether a nominee is leading in the polls, or how successful their strategy is.  And to make it worse, whenever i read the comments on news articles that DO talk about something substantial, the public seems to redirect the conversation back to who could win an election and who couldn't.  Why is voting for someone who is likely to win better than voting for someone who actually has good ideas?
gpt
Consensus is a substantial subject, especially in the primaries, because we're such a diverse country.

If a candidate can get broad support, then that means they are in a stronger position than their competitors to *get things done.*

A gay white man won't agree on everything with a black Christian woman. She won't see eye-to-eye with a young Muslim academic, who won't 100% agree with an elderly white man who worked trades all his life, who might disagree with a Mexican immigrant. A banker won't share all the same views as a liberal activist.

In a country as diverse as ours, nobody gets all they want in a national candidate. But if a candidate can advance 80% of their goals, securing support by addressing each group's top priorities, then that is a **strong candidate.**

If someone appeals to you 100%, then odds are this person *only* appeals to people just like you. This make someone a **weak candidate** on the national stage.