Candidates run to have power in office, not to spread their ideology. They are motivated by their ideology and appeal to popular acceptance of it.

Clinton is notorious for her collectivism and corruption. Trump is a Pragmatist with unacknowledged collectivist premises, but not a collectivist ideologue like Clinton and Obama who want to make it worse on principle. He ran to make the country what he thinks is better (mostly by the standard of "deals"), not to get attention; his antics are his means, not the ends. Johnson was a confused, ignorant subjectivist fool who was a clown, not a serious candidate.

"Free to speak" means they cannot be punished or prevented by force to make them stop.

"[Clinton's] ideology got her the votes"
I supported her because I thought she was less statist than Trump, by far the best at managing a bloated empire, not an attention-seeking clown like Trump, and the most responsive to me and people I work with. I did not think she or Trump had an ideology, so that was not an issue for me.

I do think Gary Johnson had a clear anti-statist ideology, unlike mainstream candidates, and I would have voted for him if there were instant runoff. But as it is, I don't think ideology is an issue with mainstream politicians. I think many voters are even less ideological than I am, so it just isn't an issue for them. They're politicians.

This notion of candidates as communicators of ideology is an ideal model that does not happen in the real world, in my experience.

"The only reason [President Obama] was elected is because of [race]"
"he was elected because of his collectivism that not enough knew to oppose."
I supported him along with most people I know, so I can at least tell you about my non-random sample of my corner of the world. I never detected anyone supporting him because of race. I did detect people who believe in socialism, as you said, voting for him because they thought he was more socialistic. OTOH, I and many people who are not statist or socialist supported him. At the time I thought he was clearly the less statist choice, but I'm not sure of that anymore. Also at the time, I thought regardless of which mainstream candidate became president, I would be sending in roughly a third of profits in quarterly estimates to run a global empire, social entitlement system, and a domestic prison system. The only candidates I thought might put a dent in that were Ron Paul and third-party candidates. I still think that today.

I would phrase the question, "are we justified in using force to stop people from speaking because what they're saying is evil?"

States competing with alternate statisms is not a solution to the collectivism, altruism and irrationalism that drives all of it.

I think that the thinness of the veneer lost her the election. A lot of people just didn’t like and trust her, despite that perennial smile her handlers pasted in her face. She is really an evil woman

I am thinking that the USA is too big and needs to split up and enjoy the competition of individual states.

Her ideology got her the votes. The country is not directed by a "veneer".

Much of that can be summed up in the teaching that objective reality is not real.

Hard to see how people can be so irrational, but it is so

The veneer got her 60 million votes in 2016

For the kinds of people he's popular with it's expected, not amazing.

What veneer of civility? You over rate Cackles.

Amazing that he is still popular

Hillary is a self centered power hungry bitch coved over by a thin veneer of civility and a phony smile

Obama's relative obscurity was one factor -- the first time. He had barely warmed a seat in the US Senate.

He promised to end the wars.
Instead, he did his best to end our military.

His wickedness was (and is) only matched by Hillary Clinton who twists and manipulates reality continuously.

Want you to know: your explanations are very much appreciated as in a learning experience (of which I
can never get enough!!!) Thanx much.

It was first sold by the academics in universities who taught others to accept it despite the American individualist sense of life. That is what Obama cashed in on. Don't challenge the bad philosophical views and the demagogues will continue to exploit it.

Yes, you are absolutely right; he sold it and it was
bought - lock, stock and barrel. Think it was Karl Marx who said "the masses are asses" which ain't
no lie.

The "golden tongue" refers to his oratory abilities learned when he was in the private school in Hawaii. It doesn't mean he was telling the truth. It was how he sold the lie, most importantly his ideology, which has broad acceptance.

Very good point. That tactic certainly worked on me with newcomer Obama. It didn’t work on me with Hillary cause she lied so much before. But it work on half the voters in 2016 who voted for her. There was something about trump that made me trust him, and 2 years of “promises made—promises kept” tells me he deserves my trust

Normally, a politician makes promises that he does not intends to keep, but counts on the populace believing in those promises. What you're bringing up is very interesting, although risky. But for a new and an unknown politician, a high risk game is the way to go. Make blatant and perhaps offensive promises that the voters will discard as "just promises." Obama certainly did that - he openly promised to destroy the American economy, American exceptionalism, American leadership in the world - he gave multiple speeches and interviews, written a book, never hid his agenda. Yet, his agenda was disbelieved. Just like Hitler's. There are many references to the Germans saying that those are just words, that the German nation is too civilized for the brutality promised by Hitler... This is an interesting formula, isn't it?

Good points. I had thought politicians usually lie when running, and what eventually happens is more a function of what the combined congressional bodies AND the president does. I didnt anticipate that Obama would get the cooperation in congress that he got.