Public Choice economists are famous for noting that the probability that any one vote is decisive in an election is very small. That does not mean that people should not vote only that they do it for some reason other than ensuring that their candidate will win. Politicians know this which is why they just hit on an issue that will appeal, character, reform, or I am better than the other guy.
Now call me a cynic (and yes you can call me a cynic), but voters express dissatisfaction with government and congress all the time. Approval ratings are low, but the incumbency reelection rates for the House of Representatives and Senate are both high.
Why are the rates so high, because everyone likes there own representative just not the other 434, which they cannot vote for in the first place. This year is thought to be different there seems to be an anti-incumbent trend time will tell. It is only June so we have several months until the general elections and more ads. What are the issues that matter to you, and how do you know the politician will work toward those issues?
I will end this quasi-rant where I started talking about institutions. With one of my favorite quotes from an article from James Gwartney and Richard Wagner:
With regard to the achievement of this objective, one thing is certain: success rests upon our ability to develop and institute sound rules and procedures rather than on our ability to elect "better" people to political office. Unless we get the rules right, the political process will continue to be characterized by special interest legislation, bureaucratic inefficiency, and the waste of rent-seeking. The political incentive structure is like the law of gravity. Just as both Republicans and Democrats fall at 32 feet per second, so too do both engage in special interest politics and other socially wasteful political behavior when the political incentive structure encourages them to do so.